Socialism’s Not So Bad, and Maybe You Can Be Friends Too!

Recently, the Republican National Committee held a vote on internally renaming the Democratic Party to the Democrat Socialist Party. Now hold on just a second. Socialism may have a bad reputation, but it doesn’t deserve it. It has often been portrayed as some oppressive, horrible monstrosity, more fit for doing battle with Godzilla in the streets of Tokyo than being applied as a legitimate socioeconomic ideology. However, there was clearly a gross misunderstanding somewhere along the line, because this is far from the truth. Essentially, socialism is a system of governance that promotes great equality and no discrimination, regardless of race, religion, gender, economic, or social status, through purely democratic means and with an economy owned and operated by the worker, to best serve the benefits of the people. For as long as socialism has been an ideology, there have been those who have attempted to suppress it, often through disinformation and propaganda.

It’s not that socialism is a bad plan per se, it has just suffered a number of rather flawed implementations and tragic circumstances throughout the course of its relatively brief existence. Those who have started wars or revolutions to implement it have generally begun with the right idea, and then have grown rather reluctant to relinquish the power they seized in its name. When the poor workers who started the revolutions were granted access to wealth, suddenly they became somewhat less fervently devoted to their respective causes. This unfortunate side effect of taking power through violent means has happened in power struggles other than those fought in the name of socialism, and should not be viewed as a given when thinking about socialist governments. In other cases, where socialism was initiated democratically, right wing military-backed coups have often swiftly led to the destruction of the fledgling governments (see Spain, Chile, Nicaragua). However, at its core socialism remains a creamy nugget of delicious ideology hidden amongst a box of chocolates filled with malcontent.

It is completely understandable that (wealthy and powerful) people have long tried to conceal socialism, or try to twist it into sounding like some sort of mystical beast of oppressive and corrupt authoritarianism. The main idea is that it doesn’t make much sense for a relatively small part of the population to hold a great majority of its resources, both financial and material, while a much larger part of the populace is left impoverished and needy. With so much to go around, everybody deserves to get a more equitable share of it. What trait entitles those on top to their position, and what gives them the right to possess such a quantity of useless creature comforts, while there are so many who lack basic necessities?

The answer clearly lies in the fact that having two cars per person in a household and a television in every room is a requirement in order to live a balanced and comfortable lifestyle, and the suffering of a few people who are so obviously incapable of helping themselves to the same necessities are not worthy of sustainable wages or three full meals a day. In the United States, it is hard to envision the fact that there are billions of people worldwide, including some within our very own borders, that struggle day in and day out in order to provide for themselves, much less for their families. While we may have done away with sweatshops, child labor, and fourteen-hour workdays here in the United States a century ago, that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist elsewhere. Around the world, people continue to work in extremely unfair conditions for relative pocket change so that we can buy flashy clothes and shiny toys that they will never have the ability to take home. Our pampering and overly comfortable society has stripped us of the knowledge that the core drive of all animals is to survive, and our relatively easy way of life has made us take our very lives for granted.

“But if life is so bad, then why don’t they get off their asses and do something about it,” you say. It isn’t that these people don’t yearn for change, it’s that they often live in countries that afford them little to no chance to do so, whether it be oppressive governments, pressure from foreign interests, a lack of access to education, unfair elections, or a combination of two or more of these factors. Much of their respective state’s income often comes from foreign sources (us), either through large government loans and/or massive investments by corporate interests, and it is therefore in that state’s best interest to keep it that way. In these cases, the options for gaining equality and access to many beneficial services are often limited to popular uprising against the regime in power.

At home, we can do little to change our system without undergoing a radical, albeit likely temporary, alteration of our extravagant lifestyles, even if it is brought about through the process of democracy. The (greedy) corporations that reap tremendous profits from low production cost and high retail value also have their hands in the pockets of our nation’s most respectable folks: the legislators! These are the people whom we elect to uphold the greatness of our nation and preserve our great values. However, if a brief turn of the head so that Company X can exploit Resource Y in Location Z can be bought for the small price of a luxury yacht, who cares?

This is one of the primary problems with capitalism. While it does have many features that are beneficial to society, on a whole it encourages the perpetuation of a great majority being mired in poverty so that a minority can live in wealth and comfort. It also serves to further the degradation of the environment and depletion of resources (colossal amounts of needless waste) in order to maximize profits. While the material perks may be tempting, the moral detractions greatly outweigh them.

It seems strange that many people don’t take issue with their actions having some impact, whether direct or indirect, on the continuation of impoverishment and the destruction of our world. An unhealthy obsession with material possessions and consumerism has often blinded us to the plight of so many other people throughout the globe. Even if someone halfway around the world speaks a different language, worships a different faith, and is fully immersed in another culture, it does not take away from the fact that with all that aside, they are probably exactly like you in almost every other way. There is still the underlying human desire to live in some comfort, be free from fear of oppression, and start a family. The world would be a much better place if everyone could learn to place sympathy and compassion before self-betterment and material gain.

7 Responses to “Socialism’s Not So Bad, and Maybe You Can Be Friends Too!”

1. Siegfried says:

   June 26, 2009 at 9:22 pm

   Lots of pretty idealism here, Jeff, but how exactly do you imagine implementing it?
2. Nathan says:

   June 26, 2009 at 11:27 pm

   I’m with Siegfried. If you don’t have a thorough plan, what you’re saying obviously isn’t even worth considering. You should probably just go away until you bother to take a weekend or so and design a plan to convert the world’s biggest economy to a socialist state. Next time, think before you post and don’t waste our time with your bothersome thinking.
3. Jeff Nettleton says:

   June 27, 2009 at 12:14 am

   I’m sorry, I think that you both missed the intent of my post. I am not suggesting anything, I’m merely explaining what socialism is and contrasting it to a minimal extent with the current system.

   And to you Nathan, this is an opinion article, and you weren’t forced to read it. I apologize if you think I wasted your time, but you did choose to do so.
4. Nathan says:

   June 27, 2009 at 1:28 am

   I think you may have missed my sarcasm.
5. Siegfried says:

   June 27, 2009 at 9:07 am

   Nathan and Jeff, my point is that there’s not much of a tie to concrete realities here. I guess I was expecting a more substantive consideration of it, whatever Jeff’s personal views. This is just a bit too fluffy.
6. Jeff Nettleton says:

   June 27, 2009 at 10:18 am

   You’re right, I missed that bigtime Nathan. My apologies :].
7. Blaise Vanderhorst says:

   June 28, 2009 at 5:42 pm

   As a follower of Third Way economics, I do agree with some of socialism’s criticisms of the capitalist system, but I am still ultimately opposed to socialism. To me, socialism is merely a response to capitalism, in the long historical process of “injustice A emerges, injustice B emerges to fix injustice A, injustice C emerges to fix injustice C’s problems”. There has to be a better way!

   I’m all in favor of living wages, and, as my upcoming piece on executive pay caps will discuss, some limit on the huge, bloated, obscene profits some of the more successful corporations turn, but I am ultimately in favor of private property and enterprise. The problem is not, in my view, too much wealth, but too much of it in the hands of too few. As G.K. Chesterton put it, “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”