I've been thinking about recent conversations on socialism I've had with friends and family. I don't want to get everyone upset or riled--this is not about "who's right/who's wrong" or whatever. I just wanted to toss these ideas around and get some feedback. I’m hoping maybe we can all be nice and hear each other out without getting defensive.
In a recent Wall Street Journal Letters
to the Editor, there was a letter responding to a column about Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez’s socialistic policies. I thought the letter writer’s distinction
of Socialism and Social Democracy (or is it Democratic Socialism?) was helpful:
“One widely
accepted definition of socialism is a political and economic philosophy
advocating that the entire means of production, distribution and exchange are
owned or regulated by the community as a whole, i.e., the state….On the other
hand, a social democracy is a political, social and economic system that
supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the
framework of liberal democratic politics and a capitalist economy.”
First, a "bigger picture"
comment: The issue it seems to me has to do with benevolence and
compassion. For instance, at the end of one recent conversation on this issue, a friend said, “Just
because we’re middle class and comfortable doesn’t mean we can forget about
everyone else.” Giving it the benefit of the doubt, we could say that the
Democratic Socialist vision that we've been squabbling over could be viewed as
a sincere desire to make life easier for everyone, which is the point my friend has been making. So at its core, perhaps we could concede there's an
in underlying good (social justice) to their vision.
On the other hand, while its critics may
concede the need for a safety net, they still see a trajectory towards ultimate
government control of the economy. In other words, where does this
"goodness" end? The famous saying, "The only problem with
Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money," seems not
just pithy but true. So to critics, there’s an underlying flaw to
the Democratic socialist vision.
All of the "good" things we've been
hearing about from progressives (Universal Basic Income, Universal Preschool,
Free College, Medicare for All) and from the Democratic Socialists (a greenhouse-gas free
economy by 2030, overhauling transportation systems,
guaranteed federal jobs for everyone, to name a few of the ideas proposed
in the Green New Deal), suggest ultimate government control over much of the economy.
How can it not? Even Kamala Harris, in talking about Medicare for All, admitted
she’d like to see the end of private insurance (I think she has since tried to
walk back that comment, but it’s revelatory, nevertheless). So even though I
agree in theory that Democratic Socialism is different from "actual"
Marxist Socialism, it still represents a trajectory towards a less free
society.
Second, while analogies are not perfect,
sometimes I find it helps me visualize bigger picture issues by comparing them
to smaller-scale scenarios. Here are a few "what if" scenarios that
I've tried to envision by applying socialist principles on a smaller-scale.
So, what if socialist-type policies were
applied to:
Academics: Not everyone
has the same life experiences, background, training, parental support, etc. So
let's level the playing field and redistribute the points of A-students equally
among the rest of the students. This way, everyone at least passes.
My comment: Even though
this situation seems to apply the Social Democratic philosophy defined above
(“social intervention that promotes social justice”), I'm guessing that most of
us would reject this argument. If I stayed up late studying, or worked with a
tutor, etc. and because of my extra efforts, I received an "A" in my
class, and another student (maybe less fortunate, has to work two jobs, grew up
in a single-parent household, whatever) did not put in the same effort and
received an "F"—it’s inherently unjust for my hard-earned points to
be redistributed, no matter how bad I feel for the other person.
Shopping: Imagine
going shopping, spending $100 on food for your family, then at the door being
stopped and having 70% of your purchases redistributed to a line of people less
fortunate than you. Not everyone has the same life experiences,
background, opportunities, advantages, etc. So let’s level the playing field.
My Comment: This again
feels unfair for the same reasons I listed above. We don't visualize it in such
a "microcosmic" way, but isn't this, at its core, what we're saying
when we advocate for a social intervention promoting social justice? One way or
another, a certain percentage of what I earned (grades, dollars), is taken by
the government to help the less fortunate?
These two hypothetical situations illustrate
on a small scale what the government wants to do on a grand scale. The way we
currently understand the “safety net,” it’s really only the truly destitute
that we should be talking about. But that’s not what I hear being proposed by
the progressive left in general and the Social Democrats in particular. More and
more, we’re hearing about “entitlements," and not just for the
destitute—for everyone. A safety net is good, necessary--it's the role of
government. But where does any of this end? What if the next "good
thing" the government determines everyone is entitled to is what we might
describe as "luxuries"--a car, a cell phone, a laptop, a paid
vacation? Eventually, the 70% or 90% of the top 1% earners above a certain
amount won’t be enough, and we’ll all be expected to foot the bill. How many of
us would gladly work 40 or 50 or 60 hour weeks only to have the government skim
70% or 90% of our pay checks? Even if somehow we "get something" back
(free health care, etc.), most of us would resist. Maybe this is another
discussion, but I think this kind of top-down society goes against the grain of
what makes America unique, at least at its core.
Here are some final random questions that I've
been thinking about:
- Why should the government decide the "greater good"?
- Do we really want the government taking our hard-earned dollars for a greater good the government has decreed (beyond the safety net)?
- What if I don't want my money going towards one or more of these "greater goods"? What if I prefer my money go to a charity, a church, another cause?
- What if rather than coerced taxing the government mandated that all people earning a salary be required to give a certain percentage of their paychecks to the charity of their choice? Government decreed charity? Most people would recoil. Yet that, to me, is what we're talking about.
- What's the difference between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism?
No comments:
Post a Comment