Fri 5 Mar 2010
NOTE: The word Socialist (capital S) refers to the Socialist party. The word socialist (lower case s) refers to the school of political thought.
There are a lot of reasons to hate FOX*, but the one that has gotten to me more than any other is the whole “Obama is a Socialist” fear mongering they’re doing. A current Google search has more than four and a half million hits for the search terms Obama and Socialist, but the whole thing is fucking absurd. Obama isn’t a Socialist, he’s not even a socialist. He’s a moderate Democrat. I would know, I’m a socialist, and he doesn’t come remotely close to representing my values.
Being a socialist is pretty great. It’s fun to argue with someone and say something like “of course every citizen deserves medical care,” have them counter with “that sounds like socialism,” and be comfortable saying “man, we should BE so lucky.”
See, having the government pay for and/or administer health care is not socialism, any more so than public schools, police and roads. These are public services, services which every person in the country deserves access to. This, to my mind, is the absolute LEAST that a person should be able to expect from their government.
The most immediate response when I out myself as a socialist is that I have something against free enterprise. I find this one amusing, as I’m a huge proponent of free enterprise, it’s part of the reason I agree with socialism. Honestly, I’d be in favor of the complete dissolution of all national corporations. Anything that ought to be on a national scale (internet, phone, railways) should be passed to the national government. Anything that ought to be local (grocery stores, restaurants, farms) will be owned and operated by people who actually live in the area and can see the impact of what they do. This doesn’t mean a product can’t be carried nationally, it just means that rather than a single chain carrying the same products everywhere, each product would be sourced for a specific local clientele. Locations would develop a culture. There wouldn’t be as many obscene benefits available to huge chains, making it far more likely that a startup could become competitive if there is indeed an unsatisfied desire in consumers.
I’m well aware that the scenario above is not traditional socialism, so just to verify, yes, means of production for essential goods like oil and sustenance food farming in the hands of the government. This still leaves local farms to produce foods people actually want under their own agency. Are there problems? Sure, but I can’t help but feel a greater affection for an organization chartered under the notion that its purpose is to serve the public good, rather than to make money from the public regardless of the outcome.
I’m honestly interested in some counter arguments, so if you think I’m full of shit, by all means let me know. A position like this succeeds or fails based it its ability to resolve or adapt to criticism.
*MYSPACE JOKE
March 5th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
You never footnoted your asterisk. It’s making me crazy.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Hahaha!
March 5th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
I think the only real counterpoints to socialism stem from good, old-fashioned paranoia. Like, “What if The Man puts stuff in our food or water to control us!?” and “What if the government uses its power–like rail and road access, or even public education–to squash companies or cultural groups it doesn’t like!?”
But the thing is, while the potential for corruption is totally legit, it comes down to who do you distrust more? To my instinct, a publicly controlled institution feels a good deal less rape-y than a privately run for-profit enterprise. But a lot of people feel the exact opposite way, which I blame on the myth of the American Dream and individualism in general. People who trust corporate rule over governmental are folks who buy wholesale into the idea that any commoner can be a success and any exception can be a new rule.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
As a Canadian all I can say is that, no, I do not live in an Igloo.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Footnote is fixed. I just forgot the *.
March 9th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
How would you answer to these following questions?…
1. What about longwaiting lines and how long it takes in countries w/ universal healthcare to treat patients?
2. Although we know you prefer democratic socialism and not Marxist socialism, and by that I mean I’m not using the Soviet Union or former-communist Eastern European countries, what about the problems socialism has caused Europe? I mean, the Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party is the leading party in Spain, and their unemployment rate is nearly 20%.
3. What kinds of socialism do you agree with? Which do you oppose? What do you think East Germany, the People’s Republic of Poland, or the other Eastern European countries did wrong, but present-day Sweden, UK, Spain, and Norway are doing right?
March 10th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
All I can say is that I laughed bitterly when I heard a conservative radio host say, in an incredulous tone, “People act as if corporations don’t work for the best interest of the public!”
March 10th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Away we go!
1) While wait times will of course vary from system to system, I’ll take everyone being covered slightly more slowly over millions of people not being covered. It’s a numbers game, and while it’s true that sometimes important ailments aren’t addressed rapidly enough, to overall level of health and survival is higher. When you’re discussing things at this scale you have to do the most good possible for the highest number of people.
2) I would argue that those aren’t problems caused by socialism, but problems caused by people in a socialist milieu. Greed, sloth and cronyism will be problems that need addressing any ANY socio-economic system. Socialism doesn’t stop this from being true. It does however (at least theoretically) move the power to the public sphere, where (again theoretically) the voting public has the ability to affect change and reformation. I see this as an improvement over the majority of power being in the private sphere where the public has no control whatsoever.
3) I’m going to admit a fair amount of ignorance as far as these countries go, but given my limited knowledge, I understand these present day successes to be built with a less ambitious scale in mind. Much in the way of business and non-essential production is left to the public, leaving the government the ability to focus on that which IS essential, and helping to decrease bureaucracy.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
This is going to be tough on Las vegas !