Mr. Moderate

To hear the right-wing talk show hosts rant and rave, one of the two worst enemies of America is socialism (the other is “Islamo-Fascists”). But socialism is so deeply embedded into our American system these days that we would not be the great nation we are without socialism. Let me enumerate a few socialist government programs that at least 80% of the people (on average) would vote to support if the question were put to them:

• Anti-Trust Laws
• Social Security
• Unemployment Insurance
• Medicare (health care program for older people)
• Pell grants
• Student Loans
• Consumer Product Safety Commission
• Food and Drug Administration
• Building roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, and other infrastructure.

Socialism has its roots in the progressive movement of a century ago, and Republican President Teddy Roosevelt was a leader of that movement, closely associated with the passing of anti-trust laws to prevent the robber barons of commerce from creating vast business monopolies for the purpose of sucking as much profit out of the public as they could manage. His cousin, Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt, gave us numerous social programs, and the most popular is probably the Social Security System.

The right-wing talk show hosts tout the value of capitalism, which in the extreme case is described this way:

In a pure capitalist system, the government adopts a totally “hands off” attitude towards business. This state of affairs existed in the United States in the late 19th century. In such a system, the government does not even act to prevent fraud or force in coercing economic transactions (contrast with libertarianism). For instance, in the late 19th century, big businesses were allowed to bring in armies of thugs to suppress organizing activities by workers (the early union movement). And the only restriction on fraud was the ancient maxim of caveat emptor.

The modern view of capitalism, which arose in the early 20th century in the United States, is that the government must intervene to prevent the worst excesses of unrestrained capitalism. As the government intervenes to greater and greater degrees, the system becomes ever closer to being better described as a socialist economic system rather than a capitalist one.

So, when these right-wing talk show hosts tout capitalism, they are in favor of eliminating every government program that benefits ordinary people in any way, including every consumer protection and every program that provides any kind of “social safety net” for people who, for one reason or another, are not successful business people.

And, those right-wing talk show hosts preach long and loudly against socialism, which is described this way:

The economic doctrines of socialism could be said to include the extreme form of communism. And at the other end of the spectrum, socialism can be said to include any economic system (such as that within the United States) where the state interferes with the free market for the benefit of the people as a whole. Even the taxation necessary to the survival of any government could be said to be a socialist “system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.” In that sense at least, then, all government can be said to have some attributes of socialism.

So, the definition of a socialist system is one “in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.” If you think about that long enough, who could rationally argue that such a system is necessarily bad? Of course, the extreme case of communism is bad, but in terms of a general theory, the whole reason most of us wish to have government in the first place is to make “property and the distribution of wealth [] subject to control by the community.” All but the wealthy believe it is fair to tax the wealthy at higher rates and tax the poor at lower rates as compared with their respective income levels. This is one control on “property and the distribution of wealth” which is “subject to control by the community” (in this case, by the community acting through its political representatives). Thus, if you look at this properly, you will see that any form of representative government that has the power of taxation is necessarily socialist in nature. Thus, the real question is the degree of socialism which is desirable.

We can say that a government with only minimal taxing ability and no regulatory powers would be the least socialist, and it would also be among the least successful in the eyes of its own people. It is also true that the most-socialist form of government, which we call Communism, is also a very-unsuccessful model for a governmental and economic system. It must thus be presumed that the successful form of socialism lies somewhere in the middle, between these two extremes. Remember, by the very definition of what socialism is, a government without the power to tax and raise revenue would be the only kind of government which was entirely non-socialist, and of course, no such government could exist for very long. So, again, we need to look at the degree of socialism when we analyze governments.

Libertarians do have one good idea: liberty is a key measure of human happiness. While libertarians seek to promote liberty and to get away from socialism as much as possible, even they would retain some minimal aspects of socialist government, such as the power to intervene in cases of fraud or force being used by one person or group against another person or group. In my view, libertarians have no hope of forming a viable government because they give too little power to their proposed governmental bodies. It would be impossible (for instance) to raise taxes and build a public road. And private companies without government assistance would not have much better luck as some people would just refuse to cooperate. The power to take land for public use, which is somewhat controversial (and which is prohibited in libertarian philosophy), seems to be a necessary function for governments in order for the people as a whole to “get things done” which are needed by the whole of the people.

The upcoming fight over universal health care, which the right-wing necessarily characterizes as “socialized medicine” (which it is, like it or not; but it is a label chosen to demean the concept as the right-wing spends so much time bashing socialism), will be a watershed moment in American government. Do you want to continue down the current path where a health care monopoly (which is actually an oligopoly) drains increasingly-large portions of our national output into its coffers of profit? Or would you prefer to see some kind of adjustment made so that ordinary people can obtain ordinary care at a reasonable cost? My guess is that, given the option, at least 80% of the people would intelligently choose the latter option.

But we need to keep socialism successful. And I believe that is accomplished not by creating a government monopoly in place of the current private oligopoly. The private system will adjust if it has some competition. So, the government starts up its own health care system which is not a monopoly, and which will act as a social safety net, covering everybody who needs care to some minimum level of care. And that is, essentially, my proposal.

I don’t suppose that the right-wing talk show hosts will ever stop bashing socialism, even though they are themselves among its many beneficiaries (through governmental regulation of the airwaves by the Federal Communications Commission). But the rest of us need to see those right-wing idiots for what they are: biters of the hand that feeds them. We all know that all civilized populations have socialist systems to one degree or another or else they do not qualify for the label of “civilized.” And modern America is no exception to that rule.