More on Socialism

I have been reading the Winter Edition of Lapham's Quarterly entitled "Night", and came upon an excerpt from Karl Marx's Capital.  Marx was not a fan of capitalism as an economic system as he felt that one of its biggest flaws was the abuse of the labor force that made it run. 

In the excerpt mentioned above, he details how extending the working day from its historic definition, during the daylight hours, to include working at night, the ability of capitalist production to increase almost two-fold is a boon to those who benefit most from this production, the owners of the businesses, but does harm to the laborers who are forced to work at this time. 

Of course, at the time of Marx's writings, mid to late 19th century, the industrial revolution which featured a host of inventions that made mass production possible while requiring a vast amount of labor, was into its second century.  While Marx may have focused too heavily on the evils of capitalism, he was not the only voice condemning the abuse of the labor force.  This was a time when child labor was not uncommon, women were first employed in mass numbers, working conditions for all were hazardous, and 12 hour shifts, 6, even 7 days a week were the norm. 

It should come as no surprise that the labor movements began to gain traction in the late 19th - early 20th century.  The everyday worker who could be fired for no reason, who had little recourse if injured on the job for sick pay or the job itself when they recovered, who did not have vacation time, whose pay was controlled entirely by the bosses, regardless of the profitability of the business, and who, when the time came for retirement, had no source of income once they could not work due to health or age, finally found relief by organizing. 

It seems unthinkable, today, that the working class might be bullied, beaten, or even killed for requesting a safe working environment, benefits which include holiday pay, vacation and sick time, a retirement plan, perhaps even maternity/paternity leave, and the option of working from home, yet in those days, all the cards were held by the employer.  And more than a few workers died in the efforts to balance the relationship.

Yet the labor movement, unions, collective bargaining agreements, etc, are now more associated with socialism, decried and ridiculed by the powers of capitalism.  Union membership is half what is was in 1985.  Whether there is a link between that fact and the stagnant condition of the buying power of the middle class is certainly debatable, but it is not debatable that the forces of big business have worked tirelessly to paint labor unions as enemies of capitalism and individualism, hence America. 

This is all too clear in the voices of those against an increase in the minimum wage when they claim that by paying workers a livable wage, consumer prices will increase and the economy will suffer.  Funny how the dramatic increase in the higher end of wages since the mid-1980's which one might say has, in fact, contributed to the higher costs of housing, vehicles, entertainment, technology, etc, was never questioned or addressed.  I would imagine that if Marx were alive today, he would be happy that so many of the needs of the working class were addressed via benefits, working conditions, and length of the work day, but might be just as adamant in his condemnation of a system which distributes a disproportionate percentage of the fruits of the labor of the working class to those who control the reigns of capitalism. 

There are many who cite income inequality as a contributing factor for the Great Depression.  Of course, we have made a number of improvements on the safety nets since that horrible time, yet we are in the midst of another big shift of income away from the working class towards the top 5%, the recent tax reforms being one of the biggest examples.  When we hear certain politicians blaming "entitlements" as the real reason for our rising national debt, it strikes me as an attack on the gains made by the labor movement to even the balance between employer and employee, especially when those attacks are framed as capitalism vs socialism.  Perhaps the next time you here someone say that socialism has never helped anyone, you might ask them about their 40 hour work week, benefit package, and employer retirement contribution, all which emerged from the labor movement which was associated, for better or worse with the rise of socialism.

I have had some experience with unions, so I know the good and the bad of it.  There is something to be said for everyone getting the same raise, regardless of ability or contribution, in that this might encourage mediocrity while suppressing excellence.  But there is also something to be said for earning a livable wage when most of those employed without the benefit of a collective bargaining agreement, doing the same kind of job, find themselves seeking public and private aid for lack of good pay and benefits. 

I think that what is comes down to is that capitalism is a system that is prized by the strong, the smart, the rich and powerful, the individuals who would be successful if all they had was a piece of string and a paper clip, whereas socialism provides the safety nets for those with less ability and less good fortune.  We need aspects of both to survive and succeed, both as individuals and as a nation.  The question is how to balance the tenets of each.  Whether it is 80-20 or 60-40, without some social programs (that the detractors call socialism) embedded within our capitalistic economic system, we will not provide the foundation for the most people to reach their highest potential.

Finally, don't be fooled by those who claim that it was capitalism alone that provided their success, or the great achievements of America.  A large percentage of rich people were very well off from birth.  And there is much evidence that the source of much of the "old money" in America, came from a time when monopolies, skewed laws which favored the rich, little worker protections, and a good old boy network that eliminated competition from those of color or of the female gender was the unwritten rule of the day.  Also, the simple fact that the last recession featured a tax payer bailout of the banking and investment industries, to name two, reveal that the rich and powerful love capitalism when times are good, but are not shy to take the benefits of the social safety nets, when times are tough.

Let's not forget that more than one historian notes that the GI Bill (actually called the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944), was a large contributor to the economic success of the United States in the post World War 2 world.  Perhaps one of the most successful social program of its age.  A social program which entitled veterans to special benefits.  Seems strange how the word entitlement is now a code word for socialism, yet I bet many of those spitting out the word entitlement as if it were poison, actually benefited from the GI Bill, directly or indirectly.     

At this point, it seems clear to me that the S word is used to belittle any program that helps even the playing field between the rich and the rest of us.  What surprises me is how many everyday working people have been fooled to believe that the social programs which they are told equate to socialism, were designed specifically for them so that they do not suffer the pitfalls that past generations of working class people did when they lost a job, fell ill, were injured in an accident, or got old, that last one being the one common denominator that we all, hopefully, share.