Scapegoating

The Basics of Socialism

What is Socialism?

Socialism is a political philosophy based on sharing the fruits of labor more equitably to reflect the contributions and needs of the individual. The essential presumption is that those with money (and property) are in a position to sustain their wealth with a minimum of personal labor by hiring others to work for them on their land and with their resources.

The Socialist contends that the owners (referred to by Marx and Engels as "the bourgeois") typically profit from these systems far more than those who work for them and this imbalance of power becomes greater as the owner's wealth grows at a far more rapid pace than the workers who, due to their socio-economic status, are usually forced to spend money as quickly as they accumulate it. This institutes sustained poverty.

In order to function effectively and in a more egalitarian manner, the wealth and the benefits of production should be distributed to those most in need. Naturally, this can be very difficult to determine what is "most in need" so this is usually done through broad social programs accessible to everyone. The most obvious example is universal health care, referred (mostly by its detractors) as socialized medicine.

The theory is that as production efficiency increases, the product of that efficiency should create more luxury for the general public. While modern capitalism promotes Adam Smith's concept that "the invisible hand" of the market will naturally spread wealth and resource to the populace, the relative difference of wealth from rich to poor has continued to increase consistently since World War II. While many capitalists claim that modern inventions (i.e. the television, the automobile, the computer) would not have been invented without corporate influence, capitalism has not been successful in providing health care, financial security, or a decrease in work hours for the general public.

How does Socialism differ from Communism?

Both Socialism and Communism function on the belief that wealth must be distributed in order to obtain social equality, however Socialism focuses on distributing wealth (or resources) through social programs. Communism, instead, places the means of production (i.e. the factory or farming equipment) in the hands of the state allowing the state to send the means to those it determines are most in need.

Many Socialists reject this model because they do not trust the state to determine where the resources are most in need. Even in the most egalitarian society, most politicians represent the upper class and their decisions will reflect those values. Furthermore, the distribution of resources can also be used to curry favor for the individual rather than reflecting the true needs of the general public.

How is Anarchism related to Communism and Socialism?

Anarchism is more of a theoretical model for government than a political philosophy like Socialism or Communism. The word anarchism comes from the Greek anarchos meaning "without rulers." Historically, the word anarchism has been synonymous with libertarianism and is still used that way in most of the world.

Anarchism is primarily about deconstructing and simplifying our government rather than becoming increasingly complex. It discourages centralized leadership preferring small community action. However, it is commonly associated to punk rock revolutionary elements due to the modern common definition of the word.

Are Socialism and Capitalism inherently incompatible?

No. Capitalism merely provides the basis for an economic system while Socialism provides a method to distribute "excess" wealth. Sweden is a prime example of a state that has embraced both capitalism and socialism. Capitalism creates a strong economic system which produces great wealth and resources which is then distributed through social programs, mostly financed through a graduated income tax. This method has proven popular in Sweden as well as other countries.

If Socialism is altruistic, why was the Soviet Union representing a brutal dictatorship?

It is important to remember, when discussing the former Soviet Union, China, or North Korea that these are all Communist states, not Socialist states, however the ethos of their leaders often did not reflect a truly Communist position.

There are many theories as to why these states developed a brutal tyranny. Staunch Capitalists often assert that the philosophical ideals of Communism do not work in practice while some historians have pointed toward cultural causes, purely physical forces (i.e. limited resources), or a market limited by Capitalist international politics.

In my opinion, Communism puts considerable faith in the goodwill of the state to distribute resources fairly, yet even in the most functional democracy, there is often favoritism and abuse by those in power.

Furthermore, Communism (as defined by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels) advocates in the violent overthrow of the bourgeois by the worker (called "the proletariat"). Marx says that only in violent, global revolution is Communism truly possible because Capitalism has the benefit of forced labor and could successfully undercut goods manufactured in a communist state. This has shaped the philosophy in the rejection of an upper class, but since an upper class cannot be entirely eliminated (remember, even in a Communist state, those more privileged will rise to positions of power), scapegoating can easily be placed as political rivals are said to "represent the bourgeois" while other upper class individuals can claim to represent the proletariat.

Communism, when you get down to it, is a very elitist philosophy. It claims the superiority of the working class but it frames this superiority in specific values. For example, both America and the Soviet Union rejected homosexuality in the 1950s and 1960s. Americans often claimed that homosexuality was a result of intellectual liberalism, which was linked with Socialism. Soviets, on the other hand, claimed that homosexuality was a product of the bourgeois and their hedonistic lifestyle, an offensive affront to proletariat values.

Marx is also well known for saying "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and Communism has taken a decidedly anti-religious stance. While I am a strong proponent of the separation of church and state, I do not support a government that practices religious oppression. One very clear example of this is Chairman Mao's invasion of Tibet. Believing that Communism is "the right way" and that religion is definitively wrong and immoral, the Chinese government did not hesitate to invade this land and continues to subvert their religious practices to this day.

What is the Red Scare?

What we commonly refer to as "the Red Scare" in the fifties is actually the second Red Scare. The first Red Scare was between 1917 and 1920 during the first World War and during the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. This predated the Soviet Union by two years and the Cold War by twenty-five. It was defined by the oppression of Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists many of whom were immigrants and/or union workers. Many Americans (motivated by the print media) were afraid of a similar revolution occurring in America.

Largely, the Red Scare was motivated by corporate interests in discouraging unionization. Before the Great Depression, labor standards were extremely harsh. Keep in mind, this is after slavery was abolished and following the industrial revolution. America was going from an agricultural society to an industrial society, so working standards became far more regulated and centralized. The industrial revolution mechanized labor both through machines and labor practices designed to get the most work for the least cost. Since there had been relatively little labor exploitation possible in an agricultural society, the laws were insufficient to protect the growing class of factory labor which included many women and children, mostly immigrants. Unionization was the only form of protection available from exploitation.

However, there was legitimate fear of Communist terrorism as 1919 and 1920 saw a number of prominent bombings including the killing of Attorney General Palmer and the bombing of Wall Street on September 16, 1920. Actions such as these were used as justification of raids on immigrant populations and mock trials such as the famous Sacco and Vanzetti case.

The second Red Scare began immediately after World War II as America was moving from an industrial to a post-industrial society. In 1940, Congress passed the Alien Registration Act which, amongst other things, made it a crime to "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association." The problem with this, of course, is that the works of Karl Marx directly advocates violent overthrow of any and all capitalist governments. This law effectively made owning a Communist piece of literature an act of treason.

Although there was genuine fear of espionage as demonstrated in the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the hysteria was used as an opportunity by right-wing politicians to criminally persecute state officials and members of the media with more left-wing values. Most of these individuals were first or second generation Jewish immigrants. Many were immigrating from Eastern Europe where they were escaping persecution which was often demonstrated through exploitation and discrimination of labor. In this environment, Communist thought proved very popular. Xenophobia or racism directed toward the Jewish immigrants could easily be associated with Communism as well. Furthermore, the House of Un-American Activities (or HUAC) persecuted not only Communists or suspected Communists, but Socialists, Anarchists, and anyone who socialized with them. Anyone suspected of Communist activities, regardless of how unfounded the accusation, was forced to deny that they had ever been even loosely associated with any communist or socialist organization or risk becoming blacklisted.

America is Capitalist, not Socialist... right?

Actually, there is absolutely nothing in our Constitution or other founding documents that determines this country's economic model. The terms capitalist and socialist didn't exist in the same context back then.

Although certain elements have claimed this to be a capitalist country, this is merely a certain point of view that focuses on capitalist activity. You might as well say I'm an eating, walking, and sleeping machine, as this seems to define my behavior.

It is important to keep in mind that America does have socialist elements that we agree are necessary for a functioning society. In fact, government itself can be seen as a method of consensus for the redistribution of wealth. This includes road maintenance, public education, mail, hospitals, Medicare, social security, the military, police, and emergency services. All of these are socialist services.

In a rational society, we should not argue between Socialism and Capitalist, but ask which model works best for what purpose. In my opinion, utilities (i.e. water, gas, electricity, oil, and communication) and insurance are best provided by a socialist organization because it won't reduce the quality of the service to serve the profit motive. Capitalism, on the other hand, may be the best model for technological development, food distribution, and certainly for luxury services.

Socialism should serve as a control mechanism to prevent unequaled distribution of wealth. The word currency is rooted in the idea that money functions in society as a current. Much like water must flow in adequate supply to every cell of a plant to keep it healthy, so must money flow to every person in an economy (from the manager to the worker to the consumer) in order for the individual parts to be healthy enough to keep the process running. Social programs create a minimum standard of living for all people. When properly utilitized, this can prevent economic collapse by insuring a functioning society even in the worst economic conditions.

Calling America a socialist nation is about as accurate as calling it a capitalist one. It all depends on how you look at it and where you place you priorities.

Is Obama a socialist?

NO! The first (and arguably, only) thing he has done since taking office is give a massive and unprecedented bail out to the country's largest banks. This is completely antithetical to socialist values. A true socialist would happily watch these banks fail in order to allow small, more responsible community banks a chance to flourish.

Obama is a capitalist, pure and simple. Universal health care is not a purely socialist interest. It has many practical applications that are important to business interests, most importantly in creating and preserving a strong work force/consumer base.