Socialism? Un-American? I Think Not!

[FarLeftFist]

Link: http://liberalpro.blogspot.com/2010/05/socialism-un-american-i-think-not.html

The mood in America couldn’t be darker. I’ve noticed that many articles that bemoan the current state of affairs, i.e.; the corporate control of the two major political parties and the media, the outsourcing of American jobs overseas, the waste fraud and abuse of government and the unbridled military spending in support of major military adventures overseas that cannot be justified by logic, just to name a few, are accompanied by a persistent comment. Many readers of these articles have a comment that basically says “I know what problems we face, why aren’t you suggesting solutions?

I can understand why many political writers hesitate to put their views on what they think would offer solutions to the problems Americans face. I believe that many writers feel that it is more important for the people to understand what is happening than to offer their opinions on how to solve these issues.

I too felt this way until recently. I now believe that the majority of people that will read this article truly understand what is happening. In fact, I briefly stopped writing about what I see happening across America because I felt that I was “preaching to the choir”. I found myself writing about the same things over and over again. The details may have changed, but the basic underlying causes of these problems like corporate control of the government and the mainstream media were still the same. Since 2004 I have written hundreds of articles that all expressed the same opinion. I now find myself reluctant to sit down and write another piece about it, after all, how many different ways can you tell the same old story?

I believe that those that comment about articles that identify the problems but put forth no solutions may be right. I had always thought that the job of a political pundit was to make people think. I now believe that this job has been accomplished. I can remember how many readers called me a radical and insinuated that I was half-crazy just a few years ago. It’s amazing how that has changed. Now I hear “OK, we know what’s happening; now what do we supposed to do about it?”

There are solutions. In 2008 the United States decided to intervene to try to avert the financial sector from a giant melt-down due to their malfeasance. This didn’t sit well with the people that understood that they were laying out taxpayer money to prop up a financial sector that had made a fortune preying on the people that were now asking to pull their feet from the fire. People still hold resentment over this, witness the tea-party movement and the uproar from almost everywhere.

I think that far from being such a bad thing, the intervention by the government illustrated just how capitalism works. Time and time again, when the economy contracts as it did in 2008, America has had to resort to socialist methods in order to save capitalism from imploding, but once the problems were solved, once our government put these bankers on solid financial ground, they gave them back to the very people that had run them into the ground in the first place. The question I would like to ask is why?

I’ve noticed that many of our most popular political writers on the progressive left are socialists. Some of these writers have publically acknowledged their political affiliation and some have not. As a card-carrying socialist, I can generally tell who has socialist leanings by what they say. I can understand why some prefer not to divulge their political identity. In this nation we have a tendency to disregard socialists and socialism because of the cold war propaganda that equated socialism with communism and repressive regimes that operated under the “socialist” banner. Even though the communists never embraced true socialism as it was originally laid out, decades of anti-socialist propaganda is indelibly etched upon most American minds.

America has a golden opportunity to change the way we have been doing business for the last two centuries. We can see, if we care to look, exactly where our form of capitalism has gotten us. The Middle Class in America is vanishing according to our governments own numbers. We have seen the median income decrease by almost $2,000.00 per year. We have arrived at a point in our history where we practically have only two economic classes, the rich and the poor. In 198, this country had the top 1% holding 42.9% of the nation’s wealth. The next 19% had 48.4%. The bottom 80% had 8.7% of this nation’s wealth. That seems horrific, does it not? That’s nothing, in 2007, the top 1% had 42.7%, and the next 19% had 50.3% and 80% had only 7%. Eighty percent of the people had only 7% of the wealth! Is it any wonder that there is a strong undercurrent of resentment in this nation today?

We are fed the same nonsense from cradle to grave with platitudes such as “You can be anything you want to be in America.” “There is always room at the top for hard workers.” “Everyone has the same opportunity for success.”

That is pure, unadulterated, crap. The other old adages certainly make more sense: “It takes money to make money” “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know”.

Since Uncle Sam owns something like 97% of the mortgages in this country, maybe it’s time to show some “brotherly” love to our citizens. Why are so many Americans defaulting on their mortgages? Just look who is still in charge of the accounts receivable at the banks. You would think that the Federal government would demand that banks try and work better deals to stop foreclosures, after all, the same people they are foreclosing upon were the same people that bailed them out of bankruptcy! It is said that “The business of America is business”. Does this mean that the banks have an unwritten rule that in order to survive they must be predators? Is it written somewhere that “If you can’t pay, hit the road”? We can do better than that. It should be mandated that Americans be given a second chance to keep their homes if the financial distress they are in is through no fault of their own. After all, the banking industry got a second chance, why not the people that gave it to them?

There are so many in the GOP are railing against the concept that government should not be part of a larger “community”. Where do you think that came from? They decry “generational welfare” and suggest that any government program that aids citizens in time of need is a “hand-out”. Yet the financial sector just received the largest “hand-out” in U.S. history. The prevailing view in America is that “Corporations are considered to have the same rights as people”. I claim that corporations have more rights than people in this country today. Thanks to the Supreme Court, corporations can effectively “buy” their very own politicians by paying all of their election bills. Our elected officials will now have outright corporate sponsorship with no restrictions. Just who will they be representing, the people or their benefactor corporations?

Socialism works from the bottom up. The banks we bailed out should be run by the citizens that bailed them out, not the people that helped create the mess we had to bail them out of. Oversight committees that represent the interests of our citizens should have been in place by now. The same story for GM and Chrysler, since the government bailed them out, they should have sold the companies to the workers. Instead, unions have to force pay cuts upon their members and take responsibility for funding their major medical insurance. GM says it paid the government back with interest. Before you start believing in miracles, let me tell you that they just paid America back with another loan.

I’m not arguing that the United States should adopt socialism overnight, but I’m sure that we could develop an American style of socialism that would work better than the predatory capitalism we have in place now. I can see a system where small businesses and individuals remain under the capitalist system, but that banks and other financial entities and companies “too big to fail” should be under citizen controlled socialism. I’m sure the Republicans and conservatives and all of the people that believe in “American exceptualism” will have a field day with this article. Still, readers asked for solutions and I put forth mine. If you can’t count on the people to run things the right way, just stick with the wonderful “corporate model” that has been rammed down our throats since our inception. Take the power out of the hands of the corporations and give it back to the people. Is that un-American? I don’t think so.

[Scuba]

1. Check out the history of Milwaukee... strong Socialist background

[Echo In Light]

2. K/R

[Hannah Bell]

3. kik. though still a pretty general prescription. how to get from here to there is what

people want to know...

meanwhile, the juggernaut to further impoverish & disempower them is rolling...

[chillspike]

4. I say capitalism and socialism are two sides of the same coin

They both require dependence.

Capitalism requires the individual to be dependent on employers and vice versa.

Socialism requires the individual to be dependent on the state and vice versa.

What we need is to apply technology to free the individual from dependence as much as possible.

For example:

If you have solar panels on your house, you eliminate your electricity bill. If you eliminate a recurring bill like electricity, that means you need to work that much less for someone else to sustain your life.

If you have your own well or a rain collector,you eliminate your water bill. If you eliminate a recurring bill like water, that means you need to work that much less for someone else to sustain your life.

If you have an in-home food cloning kit, you eliminate your food bill. If you eliminate a recurring bill like food, that means you need to work that much less for someone else to sustain your life.

In other words, the more self sustaining technology, the less the individual is dependent on the state OR an employer to sustain their life.

The less we are dependent on others to sustain our life, the less conflict that will arise in our society.

What we need to do is phase out capitalism and dependent socialism (not compassionate socialism) but use the products of existing capitalism and the redistributing of compassionate socialism to free the individual from dependence on others.

[William Z. Foster]

8. "dependence" is the foundation of human communities

Without it, human beings would not be here, would not have survived.

Ironically, it is those who have most benefited from the accomplishments of centuries of cooperative communal human effort, those of relative privilege in modern America, who are the strongest proponents of this new notion of individualism and independence. They have so many benefits that they take it all for granted, and their positions and status and advantages are so secure that they don't even see them. The "freedom" and "independence" they crave can only come at the expense of the suffering and oppression of others. This, too, is invisible to them.

Humane and nurturing human society requires interdependence. That is under assault as never before, especially by those whose lives are utterly dependent upon others.

[chillspike]

10. I totally agree with your context

And under that context you are correct...But I think there is a point where people (businesses, corporations, etc.) will take advantage of the people's dependence on them. A compassionate society would want to HELP (and that is the key word here) an individual be more independent so that they are not in a position to be taken advantage of. That doesn't mean we ignore people when they need help. On the contrary, it means we all double our efforts and our giving to help put a dependent person back into a position where they are self sufficient. Technology can help in this endeavor. We could use someday have enough technology so that the individual wouldn't even have to work most of their life to sustain it. The point is to free the person up with technology so they require an employer much less than they do now.

The problem of today is that many are at the mercy of others who are not concerned or care little for their lives. That MUST change.

[William Z. Foster]

11. I disagree

I don't think the problem is with those who need help - "put a dependent person back into a position where they are self sufficient." I think the problem is with those who prey on others and with a system that rewards that behavior.

I don't think "self-sufficient" is a good goal or a good idea to promote.

When businesses, corporations, etc. take advantage of people's dependence on them those in charge should "be put in a position where they can no longer rip people off." Problem solved. Workers should become very dependent upon one another and band together to make sure that happens.

[chillspike]

12. Problem not solved

The point of making people self sufficient is to avoid the possibility of abuse in the first place, not punish after the abuse has occurred.

Furthermore, it doesn't mean a self sufficient person can't willingly enter into a dependent relationship with someone else. But it does mean if the relationship goes sour, the victim can easily removed themselves from the relationship without losing or fear of losing any life sustaining resources. Self sufficiency may not be important to you or someone who is already self sufficient but the ability to detach from a toxic relationship without losing shelter, food or some other life sustaining resource is a serious concern for some people and the cause of a lot of anguish and reason why toxic relationships go on for so long and do so much damage.

How would you feel if you couldn't get away from someone abusing you without risking or losing your livelihood or home?

I think no one should be in that position.

[William Z. Foster]

14. just doesn't work

The indigenous people here were self-sufficient before the Europeans came. This notion that you can come and go, pick and choose whom you are associating with, is mostly an illusion and it is an illusion harbored by only a few who are in a fortunate position.

You can't get away from the capitalists, and that is not because you are dependent on them.
"Dependent on them" suggests that they are providing something for you. They are not.

There are very, very few people in the country let alone the world who would fantasize that escaping the capitalists is similar to breaking off an abusive relationship, that see this as a "relationship gone sour." They are the few for whom the relationship was once good, or who thought it could be - people from a very small and privileged group.

It is not that "self sufficiency" is not important to me, or to others, but rather that it is an illusion, a fantasy, and it is a fantasy that is associated with privileged status and detachment from the reality that most people are facing.

[troubledamerican]

5. UN-rec. My finger hovers over the UNREC button.

Why?

Because EVERY time I see ANY defense of socialism, invariably (and conveniently??) "forgotten" is the obvious INTERSTATE FREEWAY SYSTEM THAT IS THE BEDROCK OF THE U.S. ECONOMY (so sorry to scream but NO ONE IS LISTENING)

Right wingers in the U.S. would not exist. Liberals would not exist. The U.S. economy would not exist. Without the Interstate Freeway System that nobody ever mentions in defense of U.S. socialism.

[troubledamerican]

6. But it's the Achilles Heel of anti-socialism -- DON'T mention that!

Their arguments fall to pieces! Like magic! Socialism wins!!!

SO DON'T MENTION THAT ARGUMENT! WE DON'T WANT TO WIN!

[Solomon]

7. Finally! Somebody who's saying the same thing I've

always thought. "Socialism works from the bottom up". I've always thought that socialism was a natural human evolutionary progression and that it would evolve naturally one day. The problem is it can't be enforced from the top down. That's why I don't listen to people who try and use other countries as examples that it fails. Especially Cuba. That one roils me to no end because we spent so much effort causing them to fail, embargoes and what not, and then we point a finger at them and say, "see, socialism is a failure."

To be sure, a necessary part is an improvement in consciousness. A lot of people have already been there for a while. But most Americans are dragging because they have the illusion that they may be rich one day so they don't want to do anything that hurts the rich. They think that under socialism, there won't be any more rich and everyone will be the same, but that's simply not true.

[Odin2005]

9. Tell the idiots that the guy who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance was a Socialist.

That will make their heads explode.

May Day as a celebration for Labor started in the US, too.

[Duer 157099]

13. What's sad is how the tone must be apologetic when championing equality

and fair treatment. Without exception, even those who claim to do so unapologetically, the writer must nonetheless include some form of disclaimer to explain *why* it is valid that they hold such an opinion.

That's so sad.