A fellow blogger left an interesting comment on a post (Thanksgiving Turkey) to The Swash Zone in which he offered an explanation as to why Americans are so quick to cry "socialism" when presented with any programs or policies that seek to provide to each according to her need. He cites one candidate's comments on a Tulsa City Council Questionnaire as indicating the core belief of those who see socialism in every social justice program or policy:
I almost fanatically hate bullies and tyranny; I love individual liberty and the exercise of the individual human will. I am strongly opposed to any form of socialism, since all forms of socialism are based on force and the theoretical superiority of the group over the person. I strongly support the free market and the right of people to organize their own lives and make their own choices in their lives….All Government is based on force or the threat of force. The more government we have, the less liberty we enjoy. The less liberty we have, the less success we enjoy. Freedom just naturally produces success; that's what made America great. As the federal government tightens its coils around us, the nation begins to fail.
The Tea Party is a bold manifestation of the underlying belief that individual liberties are of more significance than the good of all. The reality is that we do cede some of our individual liberties to government in order to promote a civil society in which the rights of the few are just as significant as the rights of the many. Perhaps it's time for the left to stop denying that socialism is an acceptable and even desirable element of a government by the people and for the people, if that government is to truly serve the interests of all of the people.
Social Contract theory as proposed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau has at its core a belief that individual liberties have to be tempered by government if we are to live in an ordered society where the basic rights of all are protected. I confess that I am Hobbesian in my beliefs. Humankind in its natural state without the controls of government is selfish and each person is focused on his/her own interests. In this state of nature, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. Hobbes argues that leaving us to pursue our own individual interests would lead to a "war of all against all" and lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." To prevent this perpetual state of war, men in the state of nature agree to a social contract and establish a civil society. (A good place to start if you are unfamiliar with social contract theory is with the Wikipedia article; it's not comprehensive but it provides a good intro.)
Where I part company with Hobbes is that he thought the most efficient government was to have an authoritarian monarchy to whom all ceded their natural rights for the sake of peace and protection. Hobbes was a true proponent of authoritative government. Locke proposed a more liberal monarchy and Rousseau advocated that government should be modeled on liberal republicanism (has nothing to to do with the Republican Party). I support a government that makes room for individual liberties but recognizes that those individual rights must be subsumed when they would result in the denial of basic rights to some individuals.
The common good must exceed individual liberties. Over emphasis on individual liberties would result in the strong always being able to exploit the weak. Our government wasn't implemented to enforce the rule of the majority but to protect the rights of the minority. The Constitution that the right babbles on about incessantly has at its core the premise that the government's role is to uphold equal treatment of all under the law. Those founding fathers that Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh claim to know personally, didn't look to the Bible for guidance in determining the governing structure for this country but they did look to the work of Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes. You can hear the echoes of their various philosophical treatises on the purpose and structure of government in the Declaration and the Constitution.
This promotion of self benefits the individual and the common good be damned. It is a philosophy that supports that if people are hungry and without shelter it's because they are lazy. It's an ideology that concludes that people remain unemployed not because they can't find a job but because they would rather not work. It is a belief that concludes that welfare recipients, the homeless, the poor, have no one but themselves to blame for their lot and it's no concern of the rest of us to do anything to provide them with the necessities of life. It is a selfishness that supports denying access to health care to those who cannot afford to pay for it. We have become a nation of nasty and brutish people, and we revel in it.
We are also a nation of hypocrites. The very people who sing the praises of individual liberty and oppose programs designed to help the underclass, deriding such programs as entitlements, also firmly assert that this is a Christian nation founded upon Christian values. What Christianity is there in the philosophy of every person for herself? What happened to the core Christian concept of being your sister's keeper? From what I know of Christianity, Jesus definitely had socialist leanings.
The next time someone accuses me of being a socialist, my response will be, "Yes I am and proud of it."
Embarrassing that I clumsily commented below on the same quote before reading this. Thank you for laying it out so well and clearly, and with such patience for those huddled masses of teas smokers just now hearing of Hobbes and history for the first time: our fellow Americans, yearning like small children to be free of parental restraints and with just as much selfish naïveté.
ReplyDeleteGood point too about Christianity -- or Jesus anyway ( I think there's a difference) and socialism. We did used to associate Socialism it with Christianity and our country was the destination for many, many Christian socialist Utopians. Our much changed "pledge of allegiance" was written for children by a Christian socialist -- all of which we all know but a tasty bit of Irony to cap off the holiday feast.
I've been beat up for raising questions about "Christian nation" hypocrisy and the most common riposte is that "Yes, but Jesus didn't want to raise your taxes to force you to help the poor and sick"
That's true - he wanted you to pay your damned taxes and give away ALL that was left over. Pretty hard to live up to, but certainly not Libertarian.
I am definitely proud of being a socialist. :) It boggles my mind that some Americans look at that word as an insult! Being a Canadian and having lived in Canada my entire life, I've spent a lot of time comparing our two countries, which seem so similar on the surface. But one main difference, in my opinion, is that here we are inclined to value the common good over individual freedoms (although our current Prime Minister would like nothing better than to turn this country in another US. Thank God he only has a minority government.)
ReplyDeleteThis country has plenty o' faults, but what country doesn't? Yet whenever I hear "socialist" being hurled as an insult, I think "Let's see, America's pretty good, but Canada has lower crime rates, fewer prisons and prisoners, a smaller gap between rich and poor, a longer life expectancy, and a lower infant mortality rate. We also of course pay more taxes (for which we get free health care), but we work less and are less "productive" than Americans, and take more holidays (which to me is not a bad thing. I call it "life balance"!)
There are pros and cons to everything but to paint socialism as the devil is a more than a little ridiculous. And I'm pretty sure that many of the Americans who point to Canada as an example of how socialism is bad and evil and leads to granny death-panels have NEVER EVEN BEEN HERE, much less lived here.
I know this is getting too long, but you wrote a great post and I felt compelled to respond. I think a culture of selfishness has crept into Canadian society and it makes me sad because much as I like Americans, I love living in a country where the common good trumps that of the individual. I think it makes for a happier world. Cal me naive but there you go. I think Jesus was quite the socialist but (most of) Christianity in its current state? No way. They pay lip service to the concept, but that's ,it. I agree completely with Capt. Fogg.
And now I will leave you to your peaceful weekend!
Personally, and as a life long socialist, I have to acknowledge that I no longer see government as serving the role that Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau believed that it could/should.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as "a common good" any longer in our government; in fact our government is an active participant in the destruction of civil society.
Government may actually now be an impediment to the lofty goals that you aspire to. None of us can deny that government can free us but it can also imprison us and make us servants of the whims of others.
Sheria and all,
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that the term "socialism" has a specific history and that very, very few Americans (liberals included) are anything like socialists. For me, the history must be traced back to Marx's so-called "scientific socialism," which posits that the state should be in full control of the means of production. C20 Euro-socialist parties (I mean the ones outside the Iron Curtain, anyway) often didn't go quite that far, but what they advocated had some contact with Marxist theory. The American Right's talkers use the term "socialist" to mean something like, "any government that helps anybody." But that isn't a definition, it's a sham that flows from the mean-spiritedness of the American Right itself. Our modern "mixed" state, I think, is an internally developed response to certain problems inherent in capitalist production and social organization -- problems that would, if unchecked, the system unsustainable. I'm not exactly "krazy about Kapitalismus," but I wouldn't describe myself as a socialist.
Funny thing is, Social Security is about the closest thing we have to a program genuinely inspired by those pesky "Euro-socialists," and just about everybody but the GOP's leaders like it just fine.
Last May I authored a post (The Undeserving which addressed this very issue and the internal conflict we as Americans wrestle with between individualism and self-determination and recognition of empathy for others than ourselves.
ReplyDeleteWe constantly see news stories about some specific family struck with a medical disaster, for example. From that comes an outpouring of donations and help for the effected family. Yet those same people turn a deaf ear toward millions of other families who suffer similar fates who don't make the news.
As I often point out, the woman who started "Mothers Against Drunk Drivers", as laudable and charitable her work has been; she couldn't have cared less about drunk drivers up to the day BEFORE her daughter was killed by one.
i think having a successful socialist government would depend upon how generous and cooperative the citizens are willing to become. sadly, we humans do not have a history of sharing. we've carved the planet up into a few hundred countries just to avoid sharing our diminishing wealth.
ReplyDeleteBold, Sheria, just as I have come to expect from you. Bold and full of integrity. I eagerly await your posts and I am never disappointed.
ReplyDeleteTo Robert and Billy,
So nice to see you both here! I ran across a statistic the other day--now, where did I put that?--that states that the donations to charity made my conservatives far outweigh those made by liberals. As others have pointed out here, conservatives tend to give to individuals and organizations that they deem worthy, often through the vehicle of the church; liberals view taxes as a sort of tithe to address the needs of all the nation's citizens.
Dino, socialism predates Marexism. Many historians trace the seeds of socialism to the humanist movement of the 16th century which fed the age of Enlightment, fostering new ideas like equality, freedom of speech and democracy. However, it is generally the French Revolution of 1789 that is viewed as the birth of socialism. Marx and Engels built upon and added the twists peculiar to Russia, a country still caught in the feudal system in the 19th century, to their concept of "scientifc socialism." Marxism and socialism are closely related but they are more like fraternal twins and not identical.
ReplyDeleteSocialism is grounded in he belief that all of us are endowed by nature with certain unalienable rights. Jefferson labeled them as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those were the concepts that fueled the French revolujtion. I think that the real problem is most Americans haven't a clue as to what socialism is.
Marx used the term scientific socialism to distinguish his ideology from the prevailing notion of utopian socialism. The Utopian Socialists believed that capitalism could be reformed and that tehy could work within the capitalist system to do so. Marx believed that the very structure of capitalism made it inherently incapable of engendering anything except ongoing class struggles with the producers of wealth, the working class or proletariat always drawing the short straw. Marx posited that only a revoluion of the proletariat could overthrow capitalism.
However, Marx saw socialism as a means to an end. Socialism was the first phase of moving to a communist society. Marxist theory depended on the growth of capitalism and the development of an urban proletariat, which may be why the Bolshevik Revolution and the alleged implementation of Communism failed so miserable. At the time of the Bolshevik revolution, Russia was an agarian society with little industrialization. Marxism held that after the proletarian revolution, a provisional government of the proletariat would arise that would oversee state ownership of the means of production. This was the "dictatorship of the proletariat," the transitional government that would control production and distribution. However, Marx and Engel make it clear in The Communist Manifesto that this dictatorship was to be a temporary phase and would with time become less and less of a necessity and fade away. Why? Because classes would be extinguished with the strong government imposed by the dictatorship of the proletariat in which everyone worked on production to the best of his or her ability and initially, received according to their efforts. However, once the proletariat dictatorship naturally faded away, there would be a classless society in which each worked according to his or her ability and received according to his or her needs. The centralized government would no longer be needed and at last people would truly live free.
What is often forgotten in an analysis of Marxism is that Marx and Engels believed that the root of society's problems was class warfare and that to usher in an age of cooperation and peace it was necessary to eliminate class distinctions. Their end goal was not a totalitarian government, but a society in which government was no longer a necessity.
I am not a Marxist. I am a utopian socialist; I'll also accept the label of humanist. I think that the Soviets demonstrated how the concepts espoused by Marx and Engels can go horribly wrong. One could argue that there was never the prerequisite growth of capitalism and that the proletariat never truly were the force behind strong government. Debatable points but I think that what is very clear is that the transitional suthoritarian government became permanent and there was never the transition that Marx and Engels anticipated to the higher form of socialism which they labeled communism in Russia.
Clarification:
ReplyDeleteMarx believed that the very structure of capitalism made it inherently incapable of engendering anything except ongoing class struggles with the producers of wealth (the working class or proletariat) always drawing the short straw. Marx held that it was the workers who were the true producers of wealth. We tend to think of the upper hierarchy of business as the producers of wealth. Marx's term for the working class was the proletariat.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm familiar with the history of utopian socialism, and of course we both know that collectivist forms of society are at least as old as Sparta. Marx's work was transformative (along with some more recent names, of course -- Antonio Gramsci, etc.) and is what still has the greatest influence in the European context, so that's always been my point of reference in speaking about "socialism." You know about them, but for the most part, I think, Owen and Fourier and others have been obscured by Marx's version of collectivism. When the American Right denounces us all as "socialists," even though they have little clue what they're talking about, of course they are dimly alluding to this modern variety -- we're all "a bunch of commies," as far as they're concerned.
However you describe yourself is okay with me, but I'm pretty certain that very few people in the USA are any kind of socialist -- most of us who call ourselves liberals simply have the good sense to accept a somewhat lagging American version of the basic adjustments to capitalist society that made Great Britain capable of being "the place where the revolution never came."
Which means that our conservatives are truly in a time warp, aren't they? They oppose virtually EVERY measure that mitigates the harshness of capitalist society and economics, and their utopia would no doubt be something straight out of a Dickens novel. Send those ten-year-olds into the coal mines and make them work on the fine machines with their nimble little fingers! And feed 'em cold gruel once a day. That's why I've often said that the right understands absolutely nothing about the very system it's so set on defending. If they had their way all the time, they would run their beloved system right off the cliff and into oblivion.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteKarl Marx died in 1883, which was long before anything resembling the Russian Revolution was even envisioned.
In fact Karl Marx would have claimed that Russian Society and its economic system was incapable of attaining a communistic state because they were fuedalistic not capitalistic.
Karl Marx did acknowledge that society has to evolve and from capitalism evolved socialism and from socialism evolved communism.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteHow very lovely to meet you and to read your thoughts on this important, contemporary phenomenom. Not to mention so many interesting points of view from your commentariat. I should have known that someone would find that PDF. No privacy with Googol in charge.
I met Rocky Frisco at London Gatwick airport September 10, 2002. I thought that his was a fascinating example of how a very wonderful American with a deeply meaningful history of involvement with music and culture could somehow buy into the irrational phobias of the extreme/mainstream right. I was searching for that elusive commonality that binds us together even with our ideological opponents.
I particularly enjoyed bloggingdino's summation of the entire controversy. But the true irony is that Rocky Frisco really is a beautiful cat. He went to high school with J.J. Cale. He played piano on "You Can Leave Your Hat On." All of his life he has been a go-getter. One of us. Rode his bicycle through the Texas sun in 1958 just to interview Elvis Presley. If he can succumb to this exclusivist ideology, how can we as a people ever resist or vanquish its siren call to the masses? Is there really no more hope now that FOX News, Rush, Beck, Hannity, Palin et al have so much media power?
TAO,
ReplyDeleteI thank you for the information as to the year of Marx's death; however, I didn't mean to suggest that Marx orchestrated the Bolshevik Revolution but only that we tend to connect the development of Communism in Russia with the manifestation of Marx and Engels ideology as presented in The Communist Manifesto. I think that it is a mistaken connection for the very reasons which you note and which I previously noted in my earlier comment.
I do agree fully with your statement that, "In fact Karl Marx would have claimed that Russian Society and its economic system was incapable of attaining a communistic state because they were fuedalistic not capitalistic." As a matter of fact, I expressed that very concept in my previous comment: "Marxist theory depended on the growth of capitalism and the development of an urban proletariat, which may be why the Bolshevik Revolution and the alleged implementation of Communism failed so miserably. At the time of the Bolshevik revolution, Russia was an agarian society with little industrialization."
Btw, the Russian Revolution occurred in 1917, 34 years after Marx's death, not really such a distant time from the introduction of Marx and Engels' philosophy.
Dino, it is exactly my oint that the right wrongly identifies socialism with communism as practiced in the 20th century. I am not just calling myself a socialist, I am acknowledging that socialism is a valid philosophy for governing and that it is not the antithesis of American values that the right would have us believe. Jefferson, Mason, Franklin and others designated as founding fathers were students of the varied philosophies of the Age of Enlightenment with its unifying focus on the process of changing sociabilities and cultural practices. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution reflect the Enlightenment's focus on natural rights and matters of social justice that were an essential element of the values supported by the Enlightenment.
Because of the negative perspective ascribed to socialism by the right and the left's fear of with being identified as such, I think that we are far too quick to dismiss the concept that socialism has anything to do with liberalism.
Communism was the perversion of Marx's Scientific Socialism.
Flying Junior,
ReplyDeleteNice to meet you as well. Clearly, your comment caught my attention. Thank you for such an intriguing catalyst to stir my thoughts.
At a time when the people have been totally brainwashed into thinking that anything even smacking of socialism is bad, bad, bad, we get right wing idiots out screaming the s word at every possible opportunity. If I had any doubt before, this clinches it: these people are INSANE and have no idea at all what they're talking about!
ReplyDeleteI don't know what Karl Marx would make of the Soviet communism (would not be happy, is my guess), but the Soviets claimed Marx and his ideology as their own.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Stalin prided himself on being "the real Marxist" (whether Karl was turning in his grave or not is not known) and the whole bombastic enterprise functioned under the ideological banner of Marxism-Leninism, which we learned to pronounce and worship (or else) before we even understood what it meant.
No doubt the communist (not socialist) experiment as performed by the Soviets was a disaster. Still, my parents and I fondly remember many features of this failed system: free health care for all, free and appropriate education on all levels for all willing and able, no joblessness, no homelessness, decent vacations for all, long and paid maternity leave...
Eh.
Thems commies knew a thing or two about enjoying life -- and letting others do so, too.
Thanks, Sheria, and welcome to our ever-growing socialist club. :) You may enjoy The International Socialist Organization website (if you haven't seen it already).
Elizabeth, thanks for the link. I hadn't heard of the website.
ReplyDelete"The next time someone accuses me of being a socialist, my response will be, "Yes I am and proud of it."
ReplyDeleteDamned right, and good for you.