Stop the Socialist Agenda!
What is socialism? In my (educated layperson’s) understanding it’s a system of government where the institutions that support a society (healthcare, finance, industry, etc.) are managed by the central government. I’m sure I’ve left something out, but I believe this captures the essence of my (impoverished) understanding of socialism.
Thankfully, with the slightest amount of digging (just Google “socialism” and the first link will be wikipedia), one discovers nuance and complexity. From reading (scanning) what’s on Wikipedia (seems a reliable source), I see that my educated layperson’s understanding above maps on to the Marxist-Leninist economic brand (not surprisingly it’s the one Real Americans are supposed to hate): “Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as Marxist-Leninists, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a single-party state that owns the means of production. ” That’s the anti-Capitalism brand. The real bad stuff. Socialism is bad for business and is, therefore, bad for us.
But wait, there’s more:
“Socialists generally argue that capitalism concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls the means of production and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This creates a stratified society based on unequal social relations that fails to provide equal opportunities for every individual to maximize their potential and does not utilise available technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public and focuses on satisfying market-induced wants as opposed to human needs. Socialists argue that socialism would allow for wealth to be distributed based on how much one contributes to society, as opposed to how much capital one holds.”
Sounds downright diabolical!
Central to the critique of economic socialism is the notion that the public and central control of means of production and a rationalized “distribution of wealth” threatens individual liberty (read: property rights) which in and of itself, may be the core issue libertarians and Real Americans (flag-waving chauvinists in general) have with socialism. That is, there is an anti-individualist philosophy underpinning socialism that runs counter to the ideal of American individualism (read: freedom) and individual rights.
Live free or die.
But, and this is the $1,000,000,000,000 question: Are capitalists truly free?
Some would argue: No. Some would argue that even though a capitalist can own a business, or a home on a cul-de-sac in Seattle, or a compound on some acreage in northern Idaho, he/she is not totally free. Rather, Joe and Betty Plumber are being (subtly) controlled by corporate types who control the media and the government, or more appropriately, let’s say the governments, in light of the internationalized marketplace.
And what does it mean to be free anyhow? Freedom from or freedom to? Some combination of the two?
Damn! It gets complicated don’t it? And don’t look to smart people to explain it! Jeezus, they’ll just complicate things even more. Case in point: Here’s what Noam Chomsky had to say about Capitalism back in the early 1990s, just after The Wall came down:
“David Finkel: Let’s begin with the topic of the moment, the collapse of the Soviet Union: Is this a victory for the free market? Does it solve capitalism’s problems, or create new ones?
Noam Chomsky: To begin with, I think terms like “capitalism” and “socialism” have been so evacuated of any substantive meaning that I don’t even like to use them. There’s nothing remotely like capitalism in existence. To the extent there ever was, it had disappeared by the 1920s or ’30s. Every industrial society is one form or another of state capitalism. But we’ll use the term “capitalism,” since that is more or less its present meaning.”
State Capitalism? What the hell is that? If you want to learn more read the interview. Or if you want to learn the true meaning of Capitalism go here: Capitalism.org.
More from mister smarty-pants Chomsky:
“Chomsky: For some time now, I’ve been going out of my way to go to the least organized, most reactionary places where I can get invited. During the Gulf war, I was talking in areas like Georgia, Appalachia and Northern California — places that people [anti-war folks] who are organizing regard as hostile territory, and where during the war everybody was wearing fatigues. Yet I always find that people come out, and are interested. I think people are mainly cynical; they don’t believe in anything. That can take the form of hysterical jingoism, but it’s paper thin. Another form it takes is religious revivalism, which I think is on a scale in this country that’s unique outside of places like Iran. Or it can take the form of immersion in something else, like football games.”
Hysterical jingoism? Religious revivalism? Football? Sounds like Thanksgiving at Sarah Palin’s…
Bottom line: Whether you’re a capitalist or socialist you’re not free. You’re particularly un-free if you don’t understand why you believe in one system or the other.
Here’s how it works: People start life believing in nothing. Those who believe in nothing will eventually encounter those who believe in something (the true believers) and become like them. This is called social influence. Eventually they learn what they’re supposed to do (from the true believers). This is called socialization. Later, they mistakenly consider their beliefs as having occurred as result of personal choice (freedom).
To avoid the complexity of understanding it all, which often eventuates the existential vacuum of non-belief, which then leads to living in Georgia, wearing fatigues, watching football games, we suggest you go shoppin’.
We’ve got products right here.
