Socialism
Diego Rivera (1934)
“When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of highest virtues.” (John Maynard Keynes: from Essays of Persuasion, 1931)
(This article is also part of a thread of conversation in Hassid & Heretic. Many thanks to Reb Streimele for bringing the topic back.)
If you have a weekend to spend with your family, employer paid health care, vacation time, work safety regulations, maternity leave, Worker's compensation, Social security, and unemployment; thank a Socialist. The Socialist movement in the
The system of Corporate Greedism that fought those ‘anti-American’ ideals 100 years ago is taking another stab at it today, and in many states their efforts have proven successful; successful for themselves and their friends perhaps, but there remains no measure of success for the average person. If these obvious facts of life are somehow slipping by you unnoticed, or you simply have chosen to ignore them, explain to me then how you can call yourself moral and ethical while promoting a system that puts its economic boot-heel down on the person who needs a hand up, or justifies using the backs of the poor as step-ladders. These bastards have the gall to BLAME the poor for society’s problems, too, ignoring their own shameless conduct, hiding under reams of legalese and wrapping it in an American flag. The true Whore of Babylon.
The American political scene is turning OBSCENE in what it wishes to foist upon the people; attacking public education, Social Security, Welfare, and other good things that help others. Our tax burden isn't going down at all, the money is being redirected from the public sector into the private. Why? Greed! Nothing but plain, unmitigated selfishness. The enemies of the people are in power right now, finding ways to enrich their cronies with our tax dollars. How much money is raised for getting elected to office? Could that money not be spent saving our social programs? The world has gone insane! The proposed privatization of Social Security will ensure that Wall Street, already rocked by decades and decades of fraud and scandalous ethical breeches, will have its filthy hands in our nation’s most crucial safety net. We are giving them the license to steal. And they will.
American Jews, the Orthodox especially, have become increasingly ME ME ME. Whilst talking about how selfish it is of me to think for myself and not follow their religious values, they march proudly to the ballot boxes and elect those who promise more tax breaks for the already rich and less programs/assistance for those in our nation who haven’t the resources to make ends meet. I smell a rat. There is something twisted about a world that offers free luxury cars to those who can easily afford them, and yet refuses to subsidize the working man’s bus fare; the same worker whose sweat and labor made that luxury automobile possible. For Shame!
Socialism is based upon a simple theme: “There is enough for everyone's need, but NOT everyone's greed.” It's about sharing resources. Sharing requires management. Maybe you don't like to be 'forced' to share. That is the usual response and it's a valid one. Yet, either way, you are going to pay taxes, you are going to follow someone's rules, and you’re going to participate in one system or another. Maybe you'll do well enough to never need public assistance (I hope that is true), but if you ever do, or you have a loved one that does, you will then be very happy such a system exists.
There are many different forms of socialism and communism, and none of them are 100% good ideas, but I'm ok with 90%, or even 75%, because that is to me still 100% better than the GREEDISM that American politics promotes. The problems of society CAN be traced back to money; the theft or the lack of it. Money does not buy happiness, but it does provide the means to escape/mitigate so many of life's little problems before they become big ones. The poor man is no more or less moral than the rich man, but if the rich man contracts an STD or the flu, he takes his insurance card and goes to the doctor. Where does the poor man go without health care? Right now he can go to most county offices and take care of it, but those funds are being cut, too; all in the name of free enterprise and the American Way. The immoral rich man is just as perverse as the immoral poor one. They can, however, bury their shame under mounds of cash, so all is forgiven. The rest of us will, however, carry the burden of the poor man’s downfall as his problems fan out into the rest of society.
You have to wonder why the greatest minds of science, philosophy, literature, and history have advocated one form of socialism or another. It is not surprising that those who see the connectivity and continuity of all things know the need for balanced management and compassion. The greater mind has the wider and more inclusive focus.
“So long as the increased wealth which modern progress brings goes but to build up great fortunes, to increase luxury and to make sharper the contrast between the House of Have and the House of Want, progress is not real and cannot be permanent.” (Henry George, American Economist: from Progress and Poverty, 1897)
“Socialism is the abolition of human self-alienation, the return of man as a real human being.” (Erich Fromm, Psychologist: from Marx’s Concept of Man, 1961)
3 Comments:
Mishlei ~ I've given the matter much thought over the years and have come to a few small conclusions. The Big Picture however, the one that you're discussing here; how to structure society as a whole, that however I haven't yet ironed out. I haven't even untangled the sleeves.
But, because typing is free, and writing nonsense is fun, I'll share with you a few of my tiny conclusions. In fact, I'll share with you my two main ones - mutually exclusive, of course.
1) I like the libertarians a lot, and the anarchists even more ("Long Live Czolgosz!"). They're honest. They say (even when they don't) that life has run its course for close to 4 billion years now through natural selection, and that antinomianism is the only truth. Rules are diseases enshrined by Religion and Authority. They are inherently nonexistent and the very conception of them is obscene. The lion kills the Zebra because he could, the homo ergaster bands together with his brother and uncle to steal the neighbors cute little 9 year old girl because he can, and the homo sapien makes battle plans for invasion of his neighboring land because he's got the tanks. On an individual, communal and specie-al level, it's always been the same - the strong survive while the weak do not. And that system has created Man, self-awareness, calculus and cUm C cINdY nOw!!! emails. It's freedom to use your strength (and your tribes) that has created Man, it's freedom that brought about the ultimate supremacy of homo spaiens, it's freedom that weeded out the dumber and slower people and it's freedom that will...???
However. freedom of course does not end with economic freedom. If you believe in the right of the rich man to dictate his terms and have /his/ lawyers write up those hard to understand contracts - and if you believe in the freedom of the rich man to have his wife sent to a specialist in Zurcih for her 'chronic fatigue syndrome' without guaranteeing the poor man the right to a regular checkup - then you must also, in all honesty, agree to the right of said poor man to smash the windows of mentioned rich man, kill him and take possession of pesach dishes. He is, after all, Free To Choose.
If we are Ayn Rand individuals, then we must also be objectivists. Serve your own interest by offering workers a pittance or serve your own interests by raping whom you will. Freedom and morality do not comfortably co-exists; the honest man must choose either the laws of Jehova or the laws of the jungle. I have no preference so long as the law is applied indiscriminately. Economic freedom is beautiful, but without the freedom to kill and steal, it has no basis in justice.
2)Just as I appreciate the freedom of the libertarians, while decrying their philosophy's hypocrisy, I also recognize that Capitalism is the only way for mankind to make major technological progress. The hunger for wealth has brought us the era of PCs, cheap flights to anywhere, personal printers, Ipods and selection at the grocery store. But at the end of the day, none of the above has made any of us any happier than our ancestors. Advanced medicines and similar technologies have done so, but the rest is all narishkeitin.
It seems to me that the only issue of any significance regarding wealth and personal happiness - is how much the Jones' have. The poorest percent of Americans today, live better and richer than did some of the wealthiest families of old. My God! What a sultan would have paid for a refrigerator or a Khan for a flashlight! But of course the poor man doesn't appreciate his wealth, because /yenem/ has a collection of antique cars. If you're the only guy on your block with an Atari hooked up to your TV, it may or may not improve how you feel about life. If the rest of your block hasn't gotten an Atari because it's 1979, you'll feel pretty damn good, but if your buddies don't have it because it's 2005, you may not feel so good.
In conclusion: Either let man be truly free, in every single way, or level the social playing field and have no man making four thousand times as much per year as another man.
Also, I would never want to live in either of those societies.
I'm currently reading The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek. I suggest you check it out to rid yourself of your naive beliefs about socialism. Socialism leads to tryanny and the abolition of freedom. This is not to suggest that capitalism ought to be unfettered -- gov't does have a legitimate interest in overseeing certain aspects of economic activity to ensure that people aren't exploited. But the situation you describe would not be a utopia by any stretch.
Mnuez,
There is nothing about your post that I would consider nonsense. I would say more, but I am putting in some long days at work. Give me a little time and I can clarify point by point.
I also like the Libertarian/Anarchist position a lot. I am huge fan of Emma Goldman's work. I am particularly impressed with the consistency within it. I do not ascribe to Objectivism (Ayn Rand, however, in part or in whole. Libertarianism and Anarchism (any system would for that matter) would work just fine if the world was populated by intelligent and cooperative individuals whose reason DEMANDS such cooperation. The world ain't like that.
If we could cognitively retrain every human being to be respectful, sharing, empathetic, and self-governing then we'd never need governments! In the meantime, a certain level of behavior modification, creating incentives and reinforcements for cooperation are necessary. It comes down to psychology, and psychology IS the #1 objection to socialism; not because it has anything to do directly with socialism as a theory, but because capitalism must foster a certain psychological paradigm to exist. That ties into the common idea of how they believe Nature operates, which im my opinion, is not only narrow, but wrong.
One of the misnomers re:socialism is that individual property rights will no longer exist. That isn't true. You will own your car, your clothing, books, etc. The only thing you CANNOT own is the resources or the labor of another person.
Tamara,
You must be aware that there are good critiques of Hayek and Von Mises, in particular Cottrell & Cockshott (1994) in a well-publicized paper that questions Hayek's subjectivist philosophy and his application of information theory on central planning.
Kol Tuv
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home