errorlevel.org

I was reading in the Northern Star Wednesday a Letter to the Editor made by the NIU College Republicans. They were challenging the College Democrats to a debate. During the course of the letter they mentioned socialism and pointed to the fall of Eastern Europe as evidence that socialism does not work. Bringing up socialism in context with a debate against Democrats was meant to equate the Democratic agenda with socialism. This is a classic scare tactic that prevents the US from moving forward with nearly all other industrialized nations in assuring all citizens a base standard of living.

Pointing to Eastern Europe, Cuba, Russia or any other authoritarian country with whom the United States has had disagreements with is no argument against socialism. There are several problems with such an argument.

First, many socialists do not believe in authoritarianism. Noam Chomsky, an anarcho-syndicalist, is a prime example. In capitalism, the means of production is owned by a few people, whereas in socialism it is owned by the masses. In an authoritarian society, the government suppresses the masses. Such governments can hardly be considered representative of the masses. Thus, any state-owned means of production are not owned by the masses. This authoritarian society would be more aptly described as state-run capitalism since the means of production rests with a relative few.

Further, assuming such societies are socialist does not mean that socialism is inherently worse than capitalism. The countries that are always mentioned in the Republican examples are countries with whom the United States has had tensions. Cuba, for instance, has trade restrictions placed on it which severely hamper their economy. Also, the USSR was involved in the Cold War with the US, lest we forget. Although, perhaps mentioning the USSR is supposed to get Americans into a neo-patriotic, Reagon-worshipping chest-thumping fervor.

Never mentioned are countries like Finland, Sweden and Norway. We haven't fought them. And, we also know that they lead the world in the lowest infant mortality rates, lowest poverty rates, and highest life expectencies. Alhough these countries aren't distinctly authoritarian like the favored Republican examples, they are still much further towards socialism than even most Democrats desire to take the US.

When Republicans bring up socialism in a discussion about Democrats, they do so for one reason and one reason only: they mean to scare people away from progressive ideas. They want to demean government provided healthcare. They want to demean those on welfare. They want to demean a government that works for the people.

Choosing Ayn Rand-ian social darwinism and capitalism as a means towards making a better society show a distinct detachment from reality. Behind social darwinism is the idea that everybody has the same ability to pull themselves up in society and make their lives better. Anybody who has ever been in any kind of debt knows that is wishful thinking. That the poor choose to be poor, and the rich are better people are myths that are perpetuated through such a blinded philosophy.

Indeed, capitalism might work, but only when the items being bought are truly luxury items. Capitalism inevitably fails when it comes to items that are no longer a choice. Sure, you can tell the lady with breast cancer that she can choose to pay for the medical treatment or she can choose to die. You can tell the people in the suburbs that they can choose to buy less gasoline, but then they will be fired from their jobs. Some items are just not easily done without which puts consumers at a terrible disadvantage and breaks down the economic price and demand relationship. Capitalism can only work when the corporations are not working in collusion against the consumers.

Perhaps the worst implication of the Republican hatred towards socialism is the notion that you must have either capitalism or socialism, nothing in between. This is another false dichotomy (i.e., "us or them") perpetuated by the Right. Nearly all industrialized nations offer their citizens universal healthcare, yet none would be considered socialist. Most of these nations, particularly the European nations, would be considered social democracies.

These nations use socialism where capitalism fails. This socialism is real socialism that is driven by the will of the people and their representative governments, and is thus "owned" by the people. This type of liberal governing is what was truly intended by the American founding fathers. They envisioned a government that did not impede peoples freedoms, but was there to protect them and to let them have social and economic mobility. Their vision was a rejection of the feudal and class systems of (then) contemporary French and British society. Liberalism when it comes to the government can best be viewed as restrictions to enhance freedom. For example, we have stop signs and stop lights at intersections so that we enhance the freedom of mobility.

Democracy is not served by misleading the people and playing to their fears. Democracy is not served by denying people the government they deserve. Republicans are not participating in a democratic system when they use lies and innuendo to subvert the will of the people.