The Short End of The Socialist Stick
During the recent presidential campaign, accusations of socialism flew from the Republican camp, with Sarah Palin the chief warrior against an evil she had likely not heard of until, say, early September (and this would include her many years in college studying, yes, journalism). Democrats reacted as if they had been accused of burning the flag and the Obama camp bent over backwards to prove the "S" word did not apply to him. This was especially jarring for those of us who are products of 1970s Europe, when socialism was never a bad word, except, perhaps, when spat out sneeringly by Communist stalwarts and sundry members of the Marxist Revolutionary League (don't laugh, some of us voted for them in our high school elections). Indeed, to this day, Socialist and Social-Democratic parties remain in power throughout Europe, or at least as the main opposition.
The irony, of course, is that socialism recently crept into America just around the time everyone was either accusing someone of being a socialist, or defending himself from being a socialist. It came in the form of atrociously misguided bailouts for some of the most ineptly managed companies in the world, at a price tag of over $7,000 per household. Now, every greedy, bloated, pretense of a business is lining up, starting with GM, a joke disguised as a manufacturing entity that should have long ago been swallowed up by a competitor, filed for bankruptcy, or both.
Unfortunately for Americans, the Bush government, with the unsettling support of Barack Obama, only got a little bit of the socialist thing right: the part where mismanaged companies are propped up by taxpayer subsidies doled out by government operatives whose idea of running a business involves printing money, or wringing it out of lobbyists. Of course, subsidizing wildly inefficient businesses is exactly the type of socialism that Europe has moved away from, with occasional nationalistic hiccups, mostly in France (of course).
And although socialism has come to America, we are somehow no closer to enjoying universal health care, affordable education, and reliable public transportation. What we do have is De Gaulle-style socialism (state-funded corporations, cronyism, an overstuffed military), but without free and decent French schools, doctors and trains (OK, French trains are not free, but they work).
For this foolish circumstance, Republicans are not the only ones to blame: from their perspective, as long as the money flows to those who need it most (the wealthiest), they're cool; and with a bail-out primarily benefiting the financial industry's shareholders, subsidizing wealth is sure to continue. No, besides ourselves, those who need to take on some of the blame are surely the Democratic leaders, who are endlessly fearful of being accused of being Democrats. Fearful of opposing a bailout because they may be blamed if things go wrong (things have gone wrong, the bailout is a joke, and they will be blamed anyway, at least in this column). Fearful of supporting universal health care because they will be uncovered as communists. Fearful of reorganizing a bloated military because that means they hate our troops.
Democratic leaders deserve special scorn on the issue of universal health care. All the major presidential candidates shied away from it: not one of them campaigned for a Canadian or Western European-style single payer system; instead they cobbled together plans that differed only slightly, avoiding the hard questions, for instance how to enforce mandatory health insurance. Even as recent polls show that Americans are vastly in favor of government intervention in health care, even as the United States drastically outspends comparable nations on health care, even as American life expectancy is significantly lower than that of those same nations, even as people die every day for lack of medical care, Democratic leaders have decided that the country cannot afford universal health care, but can afford an extravagant bailout of the country's wealthiest and most inept shareholders and workers. Politicians with access to the very best, most expensive medical attention will tell you that the United States has the very best health care system in the world. That may well be the case, it's just too bad a vast majority of us do not have access to it. They will also paint a nightmarish portrait of Canadian and European health care, yet those of us who have had the opportunity to experience both systems will tell you that the experiences are eerily similar, just that in one case you pay directly for the privilege, and in the other you do not. That, of course, is for the many among us who are fortunate to have access to jobs that offer health care benefits, even if that means we are tethered to employers for that very reason, and yet are scared to death that our families will lose the precious lifeline that is health insurance if our jobs disappear. This does not apply, of course, to the tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured or underinsured: for them, health care consists of emergency rooms and self-medication. I don't think they would hate Canadian-style health care.
Other countries struggle with education as much as the United States. The inherent advantage that wealthier and better-educated families confer to their offspring remains a fact of life in Western Europe as it does in the US. However, the harrowing discrepancy that exists in the American financing of public schooling and the overall neglect of education are unique to this country. It is difficult to even begin to explain to people outside the United States that in some villages and townships there is so much money flowing from property taxes that laptops are included in a public education, but that in other tax districts teachers have to provide supplies paid out of their own pocket, or go without. Financing is not the only problem with American education: the dismissive attitude of most of the ruling class, whose own children attend some of the most expensive private schools in the world, also causes a deep neglect of public education. As for colleges, many of them remain institutions of impeccable learning, it's just that fewer and fewer students can afford to attend the private ones, which cost 76% of the median family income annually, and the public ones are, like their lower education peers, often poorly financed and managed. Again, it is not that the socialized education of many other Western countries is flawless, but the options are far more appealing for many of those in search of opportunities that are, if not equal, at least not so polarized. This also explains the growing flow of American students to overseas colleges, where they can secure an excellent education for far less money than in the United States.
The best evidence of where public transportation ranks in the United States' priorities is that it is a political issue usually only associated with finding homes for professional sports teams, as stadiums involve getting large numbers of people to and from a place in as short an amount of time as possible. Beyond that, few people seem to make the link between a vast array of financial, health and environmental ills and poor public transportation. Does it not occur to those complaining of high gas prices that if they had a proper alternative to driving, they would not have to spend money on gas? That those big, cheap exurban houses come with a massive transportation price tag? That the awful air that their children breathe is due to pollution from cars? That without government intervention, the comfortable, reliable, safe bullet trains, light rail networks and subways they enjoy when they visit Europe would be but a mirage? That $700 billion could buy a really, really nice 21st century transportation network in a metropolitan area or ten.
As for air transportation, there are only two things to know about it: rich people refuse to use US airlines (witness the auto industry executives who decided to drive 500 miles rather than fly commercial); and Mexico, for one, has better domestic air travel options than the United States (personal observation). Actually, pretty much every country in the world has better air travel options. Whether this has to do with the fact that most governments have some involvement in how airlines are run is unclear, but it's worth considering.
In fact, now that socialism has officially made it to America, there are many things that we can openly consider. Clearly, both parties are of the opinion that a bigger government is better, that public subsidies to private industry are the way to go, that we have more money than God, and that we are going to spend it. Now would seem like a good time to make sure that if money is spent, it is spent on things that will make us healthier, smarter and overall happier (no, we are not going to get $700 billion worth of red wine, but we can shoot for better health care, schools and transportation.) And in the process, we can make sure most of us do not get the short end of the socialist stick, the way we got the short-end of the capitalist stick.
Follow Paul Jenkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulcJenkins
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Personally I have had it with CryBaby Capitalism that took away pensions, healthcare, sick days, holidays and gave us the God Blessed 401K (for wall street to rip off)...
I am not seeing one word about foreclosures (except for Bair at FDIC who is rowing against the Niagara of Wall Street Cronies) or 401K bailouts..
AND then they have the nerve to ask for another CAPITAL GAINS CUT? These people have no soul and should be subject to the same taxes us working slobs pay, that is income taxes and Payroll taxes, no exemptions and NO CAPS...
Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
The key phrase in this definition is “in the community as a whole.” That doesn’t say in the government only. It implies the ownership of business by the populace not only the extremely wealthy, a limited few. That’s stock in the corporation with every shareholder an integral part of the management process. That’s a place on the board for a shareholder representative that comes from the vast pool of smaller shareholders and acts as an ombudsman for all stockholders. With proxy’s in hand, the ombudsman could have a powerful seat on any board and an important voice demanding attention.
Socialism doesn’t mean the loss of capitalist ideals toward the opportunity for all individuals to share in the pie. Socialism for the US has in practice been the augmentation of implied personal rights into a cohesive entity like Social Security and Medicare.
I spent my formative years in England several years before single-payer healthcare. I see a nation there far more adept at considering the individual than the US. I also see a nation with fine roads (well, some country lanes don’t count), excellent public transportation, a dedication to support of industry, and a central bank that does not play a political role.
If that is Socialism, then bring it on.
This is a very important post and should be read by everyone who enjoys Huffington Post. I've saved it to share with others. Thank you to Paul Jenkins.
I really do wish that a reporter had asked Sarah Palin a simple question: "What is socialism?"
... And then was absolutely persistent in getting an answer. ... With specifics.
Hallelujah! Osannah to Paul Jenkins for his very astute analysis on Recycling Socialism - we agree - it is not such a bad thing and would do us all good.
Unfortunately for us, Mr. Bush has been recycling Communism in its ugliest format, which made me leave East Europe to begin with. Let's enforce the Constitution and make Congress responsible again.
And a word from the wise - our lobbies are going to eat us alive - health care, medication, car and oil, military and all - they will take all the money meant for making our life better, and then give it to the wealthy, so they can turn a greater profit.
What's sooooooooooooooooo wrong and horrible about socialism.
There's actually aspects of it that work and that we need more of in this country.
We don't have to convert to it completely.
Healthcare is looooong overdue and no one can argue that European countries don't have healthcare systems that work for the majority of their populations at a far cheaper cost.
Maybe the right-wingnuts "consider" this socialism, but what works-works.
CONservatives-you can't simultaneously be FOR corporate welfare (socialism) and AGAINST Universal Healthcare.
And no, Sarah-Universal Healthcare doesn't mean America is going to insure the whole universe-including aliens from the planet Tralfamadore.
No. Socialism did not creep into America while everybody was distracted by the election campaign.
When in a serious economic downturn, such as we are, government spending is necessary. When in fat times, less is necessary (but not government austerity based on the blind-faith assumption that there is such a thing as the Invisible Hand self-correcting the market without any help from the eyes of regulators).
We are not a socialist nation any more than we have ever been fully free-market. The debate is narrowed to whether we are "left-of-center" or "right-of-center" because that is all there is to fight over, politically. We are a mixed-economy based society. And, it's a good thing, because anything else would be unrealistic.
Social programs are not "socialism" -- and "capitalism" is simply the necessary system for raising and distributing capital, not an intellectual triumph of humanity. Turning either into a religion is folly and I believe we approaching the time when the most thinking people realize as much.
Look northward. In a little while Canada will be governed for the first time by a coalition that includes a socialist party!
I think this must be one of the best columns and best comment threads I've ever seen on HuffPo.
I'm intrigued by the US/France comparison which sprang up near the beginning of the thread. Even though I'm neither American or French, I've found myself wondering a lot recently about the strange and complicated historical relationship between those two countries.
In particular, as the world's first western republics (I'm ignoring the English Commonwealth for reasons too complex to go into), which appeared within less than 20 years of each other in the late 18thC, they have nevertheless developed into two extremely different types of modern republics in recent times. One of the most striking differences - it seems to me as an interested outsider to both - is the relationship between the people and the State. The US appears to have ended up with a rather monarchical republic, in which there is a level of reverence for the President and elected officials which strikes citizens of other democracies (and not just the French) as odd. Whereas the French are notable for their willingness to challenge their government, hold them to account, and regularly demonstrate through civil unrest that the government serves at the people's pleasure, not the other way around.
Quite WHY these differences developed I'm not qualified to say in detail, but I wonder if they're the reason for the vast difference in conceptions of public services, collective goods/services and civic duties? Just a thought...
Perhaps things to speculate on are that the French undertook a violent uprising and revolution that spun up and out of control from the people and targeted the ruling class right where they lived, while the US revolution was not simply a citizenry uprising, but a lot of paid American soldiers who were hungry, uneducated, and didn't really know or care about what they were fighting about against the arms of another land. And then there's the move westward that solidified a pioneering and independent spirit in America, and the disparities between the agrarian South and the industrial North, especially with respect for the rights of people.
Well, I certainly think there's something to consider in the fact that the US Revolution was de facto an anti-colonial uprising, and that in some ways what the US got in the aftermath was a kind of post-colonial monarchy (the disadvantage of being early in the field of republicanism, I suppose). Whereas the French Revolution was specifically anti-monarchy from the start. On the other hand, the French went back to monarchy (briefly) in later years.
This may all seem very far removed from contemporary debates about universal healthcare etc, but I don't think it is, really. At the root of contemporary debates are the historical
With regard to the transportation issue, over the past fifty years Big Oil, the auto and airline industries have worked hand in hand and spent billions in lobbying fees fighting against any meaningful rail transportation. The auto industry purchased the rights to trolleys in major cities throughout the U.S. and took them out of service. We claim to be the best country in the world however are decades behind other industrialized nations in terms of mass transit, health care and education.
Well Whaddya Know!
This has been my drum beat since the 1960's. We have had many nails driven into the coffin of a democratic republic and the Bill of Rights over many years in this country of essentially exactly that; a corporate marriage with state power and the establishment of a police state machine of oppression for containment of the masses through fear of incarceration and stripping of freedom to maintain compliance through state statutory power, rooted in the "establishment cause" and "Clear and Present Danger" doctrine US Supra leans on to advance this oppressive state agenda. Given even a cursory reading of "Der Fuher" would tell the reader that we have evolved in time into a fascist police e state.
I will save you the book of evidence I have gathered for nearly 45 years, but one of the final nails was driven into our Bill of Rights of a free people in the Patriot Act, which is nothing more than a legal mandate for state power to act in ways nearly identical to Germany's Schutzstaffel (SS )1933-45 and a Gestapo in the name of fear mongering, for which Bill O'Reilly doubles for the standard for propaganda, Mr. Joseph Goebbels, the standard for which propaganda is
Only in America can you lose your house over a hot appendix..
Corporate America's mantra has always been "Privatize profits, socialize losses".
In Socialist countries the government doesn't waste taxpayers money bailing out worthlessly inefficient companies. You yanks really need to brush up on the differences between your emotions and politics. Just because something frightens you it doesn't mean it's liberal or socialist or communist. Old ronnie regan propaganda is not an education.
Not according to the EU Competition Commissioner:
"BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - The European Union's competition chief said Friday that Germany and France should avoid entering a global "subsidy race" to bail out the ailing car industry.
EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said the current rules already allow for plenty of aid to car companies for research and environmental technologi
http://www
You'll notice the advice was "to avoid" which proves my point nicely.
We choose what we wish all of us to have and vote to support it with our taxes. That's democracy. Many of those things are 'social.' We are socially idealistic; feed the hungry, care for children and the aged and heal the sick. Right now, the 'private sector' is failing in fulfilling one of those humanitarian ideals, right here in the US. Do we have the strength of principle to overcome the vast profit-producing and wasteful insurance and pharmaceutical industries to accomplish the ideal? Expect "socialist" to be heard loudly and far more often if it looks like we do. At four thousand a month for 'maintenance drugs' to keep my husband, and everyone else with his chronic illness, alive, the pharmaceutical corps have plenty to spend on 'megaphone
"Right now, the 'private sector' is failing in fulfilling one of those humanitarian ideals, right here in the US"
Quite frankly, the private sector is INCAPABLE of fulfilling humanitarian ideas. Humanitarian ideals conflict with the profit motive. Only the government, for the people and by the people, can meet the needs unaddressed by the private sector and capitalist enterprises.
Capitalism is the WORST form of economics in terms of distributing wealth through an economy. The end-game of capitalism is monopoly and its motive is to seek profits at any cost and by any means. We need a socialist economy, allowing for private enterprise for non-essential goods and services, that will address the basic needs of people by subsidizing goods and services that everyone needs and uses.
For example, the entire energy industry should be nationalized. No more "open market" for oil and petroleum products. No more price fixing by Big Oil and OPEC. A nationalized energy company could put priorities on alternative energy sources and eliminating pollution from power generating plants - since the profit motive is gone, there won't be resistance to making these investments because no one will be earning dividends off of the company, at least not directly.
The American form of socialism will be quite different from the socialism known in the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. It will also be different from European Socialism. But nevertheless it will be a great improvement over our current system of (loosely) regulated capitalism.
Spread the wealth!
Right on !!!!
But to revise what you said...
...the Democratic leaders (and a lot of their followers), who are endlessly fearful of being accused of being Democrats.
One thing this post-election period has shown me is that Rush and his cronies have succeeded. They have truly made liberal a four letter word and many who would normally consider themselves liberal have taken to hinding behind a "centrist pragmatic" costume in fear. While I wish we'd become more "open" about our socialist side... that's not going to happen while people are afraid of simply being liberal.
People are obsessed with names "socialism", "capitalis
What you write are simple and true concepts that cannot get through to masses of stupid Americans who are willingly fed propaganda. It is so frustrating. The whole, "Why should I wait for any treatment- if others can't get healthcare so that I don't have to wait, then that's fine with me" scenario is a morally acceptable concept to tens of millions of stupid Americans, otherwise known as low information voters, and sometimes I think that this country will have to wait for them all to die off before we can progress on expanding access to healthcare. How these propaganda wars are won by such cruel and inane propagandists is something we liberals haven't figured out yet.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
