What is so bad about Socialism

As the approval ratings of our President slide while the number of Democrats willing to challenge him in 2020 multiply, it appears that the defense of the current administration comes down to the economy, the rise in the stock market (since late 2016), and the historic drop in unemployment.  While one could argue that all three of these trends started in the second half of President Obama's first term, it is still true that all three trends have continued under the Trump Administration, and for that, credit is due.  I am certainly not a fan of most of President Trump's policies, but it does not negate the truth that America's economy is going well, and if we are to give credit for Obama for pulling us out of the morass that was left to him by Bush 2, we should give credit to Trump for continuing the positive momentum. 

A quick digression.  If anyone is serious about unity, then we need some people to begin expressing unity through praise of those on the other side.  If President Trump wants those who voted for Hillary, to believe in his call for unity, he should remind all Americans that in 2008 we experienced an economic meltdown that could have become a depression, but through the work of the Obama Administration, the Fed, Congress, and the private business sector, we recovered from that scary time, and so began the unprecedented surge in our economy that we are currently experiencing.  Additionally, if one of the current or soon-to-be Democratic presidential candidates wants to be taken seriously in his/her call for unity, they should remind those who voted for Hillary that we are doing better as a nation, economically, and that we can't pretend that some of decisions made by the GOP controlled Congress and Trump Administration are not partly responsible for that success.

There, I said it.

Before beginning this post, I read two of my previous posts concerning socialism.  Here are links to those two.  The free lunch post details my agreement that there are far too many free lunches being distributed in America, but who is on the receiving end of those free lunches may surprise you.  The capitalism and patriotism post was the third in a series of posts I did on capitalism and among other things, discusses how the perception of the source of criticism about capitalism can make all the difference in the world, just as constructive criticism from someone in one's family (spouse, parent, sibling) is received differently than the exact same fault finding should it come from outside the family.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/03/free-lunches.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/07/capitalism-and-patriotism.html

As I said in the beginning, the bulk of the defense for President Trump's Administration is based on the good economics of the day.  As a result, the S word (Socialism) is used by many of his defenders as a way to frame any disagreement of his policies, and/or as a way to describe the democratic party.  We see pictures of Venezuela on our screen, we know it is a socialist country, and so we assume it is a direction we should not pursue.  Or we listen to a panel of erudite individuals who extol the virtues of capitalism (of which there are many) in comparison to the shortcomings of socialism (of which there are also many). 

So, let's be clear.  As an economic system, capitalism has proven itself to be the better choice.  It provides the most opportunity for the most people, generally rewards hard work with material success, promotes self-sufficiency over dependence, and allows for more upward mobility in a quicker time.  I can't imagine that there is much debate, even among most liberals, certainly among the democratic presidential candidates, that capitalism helped make America great. 

Remember, as defined, socialism is an economic and political system in which the production and distribution of goods is controlled by the government rather than private enterprise.  Have you heard any serious Democratic candidate say we should nationalize any industry?  I know, health care you say.  But that is not true.  Universal Healthcare is about placing everyone in the country in one big pool in order to spread costs among the entire population, while providing one network through which to pay for all health services.

We already have such a system, called Medicare, and while one could certainly argue that it pays providers amounts that are often less than costs (a good deal for the consumer, the US taxpayer), it is also true that it provides health care services to people who would not otherwise have access to health care services.  And that those people are those who are the most vulnerable, the elderly and chronically sick to name some, who could either not afford health insurance or would not "qualify" for it in the private market where profit is part of the equation.

Still, the production and distribution of health care services is not controlled by the government (the definition of socialism) as providers are still local doctors and hospitals.   It is a social safety net not socialism, and it evolved as a result of people living longer past working age, without the usual method of paying for services, yet needing more health care services due to their longevity.  In essence, as individuals, you have two choices.  Die young and rail against old people using a disproportionate amount of our health care dollar, or live longer and be grateful that a system exists so that you don't have to choose between medicine and food. 

And that, my friends, is one of the problems with capitalism.  When everything is weighed by monetary gain or loss, then people become a liability, especially sick and or old people in the case of the health care industry.  Survival of the fittest sounds good when applied to better business ideas, or better business efficiencies, or even just better products and services, but not so good when applied to your sick mother, or disabled child, or mentally challenged relative.

Clearly, America's political system of choice is democracy, or to be more precise, representative democracy.  And again, no serious democratic presidential candidate is advocating socialism as a political system to replace democracy.

However, there are a number of social programs that liberals and democrats do advocate.  Universal Healthcare, as I mention above, being one of them.  But also, methods to address income inequality, which, on its surface seems to violate one of the ideals of capitalism; equal opportunity.  If too much money, or too many resources are in the hands of too few people or too few corporations, then opportunity for economic advancement is reduced.  Capitalism is hindered.  If, by applying higher tax rates on the very rich, we can allocate that money for education, infrastructure improvements, small business entrepreneur-ships, public-private cooperatives, etc, then perhaps capitalism will be better served.  Clearly, we don't want all the money in one man's hands, yet when we hear progressives talk about placing ceilings on salaries or enacting rules so that billionaires pay the same rates as their chauffeurs, the S word is tossed on our TV screens and we cry foul.     

Free education is another example.  We already provide free public school education up to 12th grade, an idea, by the way, that was not fully embraced by all in the day.  There is certainly plenty of evidence to indicate that a high school education is not enough in today's world.  The boon in college enrollments (and tuition) in the past 30 years demonstrates that a high school education is not enough to provide economic security.  Nor is it enough to provide our workforce with the skills to make our industries (and country) competitive.  It is past time to create a framework that enables all young adults the education to pursue a career, or job, which both advances their opportunity for personal success, and in aggregate, does the same for America. 

Whether that extra two to four years be in a community college, technical school, or any of the myriad other ways that a young person can continue to develop her skills, an educated citizenry should be one of our top priorities.  Of course, we will need some out-of-the-box ideas to make it work, not just two or four more years of the same thing.  But when a percentage of the voters cast aside their heads when they hear about creating a framework for reducing the costs of advanced education simply because someone associates the idea with socialism, that is a shame.

Some seem to equate the battle against climate change as some kind of tenet of socialism, perhaps because it is framed by its detractors as damaging to our economy.  It is hard to imagine what life might be like in our neighborhoods, if the voters who supported environmental regulations 30, 40, 50 years ago, had been convinced that clean air and water were some type of socialist propaganda.  Yet here we have reams of scientific evidence that we are doing harm to our planet, our gift from our creator unique in our galaxy, perhaps even our universe. Yes, a Green Deal with our environment in which we acknowledge that we can't continue to act like there is a backup planet for us, that we act in unison with all other countries, and for today, as well as tomorrow's Earthlings, may sound like socialistic hogwash, if your only concern is profit, but sounds like responsible stewardship of our planet and our children's' future to me.

And, of course, we already enjoy a number of social programs that each and every day help the majority of American families.  Our parents are able to live modestly with the help of Social Security and Medicare.  Our chronically sick relatives can live in an assisted living environment with the help of Medicaid.  Many of our suburban dwelling neighbors commute on public trains, which while not making a profit, reduce the number of cars on the road along with the pollution they create.  During the 2008-2010, financial crisis, far too many us remained in our homes and provided food for our children (me, among them) through the assistance of unemployment checks, food stamps, perhaps even a welfare payment.  The crushing wheel of layoffs, less people earning money, more layoffs, was slowed due to the safety nets that were created after the Great Depression.

One of the most effective arguments against social programs and socially (meaning group) driven solutions is that it contradicts the narrative that we have purchased part and parcel in America; the glorification of individualism.  Don't get me wrong, the emphasis on the power of each person to make their own way, find their unique place among men, be more than just one of the crowd is an important as anything in the big picture.  It is often the lone voice that sparks change. 

But progress, real progress, cannot occur if only one person believes in it.  Yes, one can start the wave, but it takes the community to keep it going, to spread the advantages, to inspire through words and deeds, its merits.  When someone in power or with great influence dismisses social programs he is generally dismissive of the forces that helped him acquire his influence or power.  Perhaps he forgets his birth in a household of wealth, or his early education in private schools, or the many contacts he inherited simply due to his last name, or the advantages that money can buy as he climbed the ladder of success, or perhaps simply the mentor he listened to in the beginning, when success was not certain.

Social programs are designed to provide the temporarily needy with a respite from a downward spiral to economic death.  Yes, it should not be considered a lifelong answer.  But if we are to condemn the social networks because there is some fraud, we must also curtail all the business tax breaks because there are those who cheat in their use as well.  No program is without its abusers, yet there are too many pundits who use an example of welfare fraud to justify ending all social programs, then to add the cherry on top, associate those social programs with socialism.  End of story.

So, what is so bad about Socialism.  Well, as an economic system, and as executed with political systems that were not democratic in nature, a multitude of things.  But that is not what the progressive liberal agenda (I love that phrase) is about.  It is about social programs that are designed to provide a net when events are less than positive.  A framework to allow those with less to function within our capitalistic society.  A network for those who did not win the birth lottery.  Resources and paths for all to access so as to enjoy the fruits of their efforts.  And mostly, a hedge against our democracy becoming a plutocracy which is my biggest fear.

Like so many things in life, balance is necessary.  Perhaps someday a more advanced form of government will evolve, an enlightened economic system will be developed.  But for now, capitalism, mixed with social programs to even the playing field a bit, and democracy, with its emphasis on one person, one vote, seem to be our best bet.  While each has its flaws, blended together they make an effective recipe for our time.  It's in the mixture that we argue, fight and fuss.  But that is the beauty, the essence of this experiment we call the United States of America.