What's Wrong with Socialism
A Necessary Evil? or a Vital Function?
The truth is quite different. Would it surprise you to know that America already is a socialist nation? Or that, in fact, capitalism depends on socialism to survive?
To find the real truth, we Americans have to first realize that we don't really understand socialism at all. Then, we have to ask ourselves a question: What is socialism, really?
At its core, socialism is a vital need for every community, from cities and towns to great big continent-spanning nations. It is the pooling of resources into a communal fund in order to do something that no individual can do alone. Socialism is simply providing a service to a community at community expense.
In fact, every modern nation in existence today is socialist, to some degree or another. It is not a "necessary evil", as some would say, but an immense benefit; socialism is the entire reason that humans began living in communities to begin with, way back at the dawn of recorded history.
Despite what propagandists on the right have to say about it, even they are strongly in favor of socialism: every one of them proudly wears their pro-military status on their sleeve. That's right - having a standing military is a function of socialism.
It is the veritable definition of socialism: the entire community pays for the service of soldiers because the entire community benefits. Providing for the common defense is one of the oldest applications of socialism. Even in the pre-civilized era of humanity, everyone who could contribute to a community's defense, did.
Socialism provides the mechanism by which nearly all of our most vital community services operate. Local fire departments, police forces, schools, libraries, highways, sewer systems... virtually every aspect of community living, all those things that make life in a modern civilized society possible, are all the result of socialism.
Opponents of socialism are quick to bring up some of socialisms more questionable applications: inflated bureaucracies, excessive federal agencies, and committees without end. All of that government red tape is every entrepreneur's worst nightmare, and all of it is the result of socialism. It is true; every government function (or dysfunction, as the case may be) is because of socialism.
However, without socialism, there would be no government at all. Is there anyone who would contend that we would be better off with no government whatsoever? Could we survive, as a nation, with no central authority to support our military? With no law-making body to protect us (even if it is sometimes overprotective)?
Even those dreaded regulations have their place, as shown by the recent economic disaster. With no element of socialism to temper the "invisible hand" of the "free market", corruption and greed would quickly devour and destroy our society.
Free enterprise alone cannot provide for all of our needs. The current state of our healthcare system is a prime example. Unlike fire and police services, medicine remains our nation's last holdout of a vital emergency service that remains in the hands of capitalism. Even with semi-socialist programs like Medicare and Medicaid, millions of Americans are left without the ability to receive necessary medical care.
With high drug costs and expensive physicians and specialists, many of our people are left out in the cold. Only in America, of all the advanced modern nations, are citizens left to die for the crime of simply being uninsured - and even those with insurance are forced to pay high premiums for the service.
A now-famous line, coined in "The Case for Universal Healthcare", that perfectly describes the problem, is this: industrialized healthcare is not "for people", it is "for profit".
Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism: it isn't about making a profit; it is about providing a service to all the members of a community. Everyone pays, because everyone benefits.
Socialism is the giving of a little from each of us for the betterment of all of us. It is litereally putting country first.
In truth, no one who understands socialism is against it. The arguments are really all about its application.
It is a very common misconception (and widely propagandized fear) that socialism automatically means government control. Should the corrupt (yet frequently re-elected) representatives of the people control large portions of our economy? Of course not - but representative control is not a necessity of socialism. However, is it any wiser to leave our vital services in the hands of equally corrupt private industries?
Are we to believe that a group of people who are not public servants, who are not answerable to any over-reaching authority or ethical standard, would somehow be better for users of a particular service?
Government control isn't always a good thing, but neither is private control. As with most things, the rational answer lies in moderation. The truth is that socialism does not require government control, just that a service or industry be funded by the community as a whole. The easiest way to do that is often to have a government administer the process of that funding, but direct control is not needed.
Take the healthcare debate, for an example: The argument against socialism here is: "Who would want Congress telling your doctor what's medically best for you?" The truth is that such a level of government involvement isn't practical, nor is it required. In many nations that already have universal healthcare, the doctor still decides what is best; the state just pays the bill.
In fact, what is our present system but a situation where a collective of ultra-rich money-hungry executives dictate how your medical care will be handled? Is it really any better to have a Kenneth Lay telling your doctor how to treat you than a Barack Obama?
At least government representatives are answerable to their constituents every so often - what can an angry public do about a corrupt totalitarian HMO? How is it better that necessary care be denied to dying people for the benefit of a corporation's own bottom line?
Would anyone rather die when they could live, knowing their sacrifice makes an already wealthy person even wealthier? Would you choose such a fate, in the name of capitalism? Would you condemn your child to die for a rich man's greed? Is that patriotism?
Surely, there is no one who really believes that we should be rid of our military. Surely, there is no one who would contend that we would be better off without police to enforce our laws. Surely, no one would ever believe that our fire services should be returned to free market control, where any building who's owner hadn't paid a premium was allowed to burn, as was the case during the early days of our nation. Nor would anyone claim that any of those community-paid services would be improved if they were privatized.
Where capitalism supplies the motive and mechanism to grow and improve a society, socialism provides the foundation on which every society is built. Without socialism, every one of us would be entirely on our own.
So, really, the question is not "Is socialism wrong?" but "What's wrong with socialism?" We already use it. We already depend on it. And, whether we know it or not, every one of us is already in favor of it. We are a socialist nation.
Published by Bryan Belrad
The mind behind Zero Sum Theory, author of best-selling fiction and non-fiction, see what else he's up to on Facebook. View profile
- The Spread of Nationalism & Socialism During the Industrial RevolutionNot everyone was satisfied with free market capitalism during the industrial revolution and many looked to socialism and nationalism for something different.
- Who is Afraid of Socialism?Article about the wrong ideas American people have about Socialism, and what Socialism really is.
- Obama Socialism Redux: Barack Obama's Alleged Marxist/Socialist LeaningsSocialist buzz phrases like "spread the wealth around" and "redistribution of wealth" keep coming out of Barack Obama's mouth, both past and present. What follows is a redux of how the word "socialism" keeps dogging...
- Democracy, Communism, Socialism and Their Societal EffectsAn in-depth discovery on the social impact of democracy, communism and socialism.
- Background on the Ba'th Socialist PartyThe Arab Ba'th Nationalist party began with the ambitious philosophies of two Syrian nationalists, came under the influence of a Syrian socialist and proved to be one of the region's most virulent strains of Arab nati...
- What's so Bad About Obama's Socialism?
- Universal Health Insurance: What's Wrong with Single-Payer Health Care?
- Obama Joker Poster: Just a Hint of What's Wrong with Our Society Today
- Marxism 101: What is Socialism?
- Socialism or Democracy - It's Our Choice
- Parental and Community Involvement in Schools
- Why is Socialism Incompatible with Democracy?
- Get more: www.BelradUniverse.com
- Socialism is already a part of our everyday lives - and we're better off for it.
- Redistribution of wealth is a function of Capitalism or Communism, not Socialism.
- 'Spreading the wealth' is just the reverse of the normal flow, concentrating the wealth in the rich.
9 Comments
Post a CommentI agree with this. In fact I would say the United States would benefit by accepting a more socialist society. I hate when people point out the "evils of socialism" and ignore the evils of capitalism. The fact that two percent of the population controls over 50 percent of wealth in the united states. Of said two percent, very few of whom actually worked for their wealth but inherited it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought capitalism was supposed to reward the hardworker? I would like to live in a society where our youth have an education that will not result in $80,000 plus of debt by age 22. Everyone has access to healthcare, lucky enough for me I am already a part of a "socialist" healthcare called tricare. Now, I do not believe everyone should be equal on how much they earn each year because pro-capitalists are correct and that doesn't provide the "rewards" people desire to contribute to society. But, I do believe the separation of wealth should not be nearly as great as it is today. The average american worker makes about $40,000 a year I believe before taking out about 25% income tax while an average american in the top one to two percent will make that in a day through dividends which are only taxed 15%. Something wrong with that picture? Therefore, just make the rich a little less rich, and the poor a little less poor. Now, to the person saying if you don't use it you will not benefit, that is true yes, but society will. Just because you may not need to borrow a book from the library, have your house burn down, have a break in, have kids who go to school, or whatever, someone will. It feels good knowing you helped your neighbor. So I can't guarantee that you will benefit, but if we all support each other then it alleviates our individual burdens. And no people are not going to pay the same amount, why should a single mother working two jobs pay as much as the CEO of Wal-mart. The one's who determine the services needed, if you are referring to health care, would be doctors, like mentioned in the essay, I assume you missed that while skimming through to jump on the comments. Today, if you have HMO, the insurance provider will determine what service you get, and if it costs more than what you have paid well sucks to be you, enjoy trying to get that to court before the cancer eats away your liver. In a more socialist society, the rich would help ease that burden on the less fortunate. I think they can deal with one less Ferrari. The one's who will enforce the collection of your payment are the one's who enforce collection of payments now, police. Silly question really, I think you just ran out of things to criticize. Talking about failed communist countries as little to do with what we are saying, first off in Athens, 500 bce, what nation had successfully instituted democracy, none. Theres always a first. And we are not talking about full blown communism, like you are not talking about full blown capitalism which if you are I'm sorry but you are foolish. With full blown capitalism we would have corporations forming trusts with the sole purpose of making money while hiring kids who make 5 cents an hour working in an unsafe factory, look at early 20th century US. Lets have a chemistry experiment, shall we. Suppose capitalism is like Sodium, an unstable metal the reacts violently with anything and socialism is like chlorine, a toxic gas that kills slowly. Seperate these two elements and well, they suck. But put them together and they form something useful, table salt (NaCl) or a government that actually functions with equality for all men and women, not just those born with a silver spoon. Well, there's my two cents, enjoy.
Dear John,
I find it interesting that you would use the term "propaganda" in an attempt to summarily dismiss my work, and then proceed to post a comment consisting of exactly that. Either you failed to read the article before commenting, or you are deliberately ignoring its contents. Whichever, ditto-ing Rush Limbaugh only makes you appear foolish.
The article never stated that pure socialism was an ideal system, which it isn't, but merely points out that socialism does exist in America - and that, used reasonably and in moderation, it is vital for the function of our civilization. Obviously, either extreme -pure socialism OR pure capitalism - is idiotic.
The failure of the Soviet Union and other fascist systems, in truth, has nothing to do with the subject matter; as none of the cited nations were *capitalist*, they do not have any bearing on capitalism's dependence on a socialistic foundation to thrive. And, as for your point about failing economies: for the sake of fairness, I must point out that our own economy hasn't been looking so hot lately.
I support your right to voice your opinion - but you, as a patriotic American, must respect mine to call you out for your rhetoric, hyperbole, and downright dishonesty.
Now, if you'd care to try that again, I would welcome a thoughtful, considered, and honest point of view. And thanks for dropping by.
There is simply no end of the Socialist Propaganda that is bandied about as fact. First and foremost in this column is the statement "... in fact, capitalism depends on socialism to survive?" This is a 180 degree lie. It is not only not the truth, it is an anti-truth.
Just a casual consideration of this Big lie is that if it were true, the Soviet Union would still be in existence. Cuba would be a workers paradise instead of a crumbling tombstone to the great experiment of Marxist thought in the Caribbean. Hugo Chavez would not have a ruined economy in a once very successful Venezuela. And last but not least the most benevolent Socialist states, AKA The European Market, would not be teetering on collapse and threatening to take the US Banks and the Fed with it.
One other question to the Socialist true believers. How is it that there are rich Socialists. Hmm? Soros, Michael Moore, Al Gore too many of the Hollywood elites to name. Capitalists every one!
Yes, this article is very well written and easy to understand. It really helped to clarify what socialism is and the debate surrounding the issue.
The article states that Socialism is about providing services to all the members of a community. Everyone pays, because everyone benefits.
I have Questions:
#1 Can you promise that everyone will pay and that they will all pay the same amount?
#2 Who determines what services are needed?
#3 Who will enforce the collection of my payment?
#4 The statement "everyone pays because everyone benefits" presents a major problem. Do you really believe that everyone will always benefit from every program even if they dont use it? Obviously if you don't use a program you won't benefit, yet you still must pay? Not talking about police and fire. Again, who gets to decide what programs and how much we must pay?
When is enough, enough? How many communities use their fire and police as pawns (threatening cut backs and lay-offs) to get new taxes collected to pay for all the unnecessary programs? Let's stick to the basics; I'll support that, but not the frills. When the planned spending exceeds the budget, start laying off the councilmen, the administrators, the mayor if necessary - but not the fire and police. To protect their jobs the mayor and council men will have to reduce spending while keeping the safety forces at full compliment. I bet they will find a way. Then spend only what is necessary, and see where that takes us.
To everyone: I had no part in the deletion of the comments running from late August through today. I'm not sure what happened - if it's a server problem or an editorial decision or what - but I want to make it very clear that I welcome dissenting opinions and never support any policy of censorship.
By the way, just to make it clear, I think this is a great article. I don't fully agree with your analysis, but it is very well written, and commend you for broaching the subject.
You raise some really valid points here thanks!