Friday, February 6, 2009
All in Favor of Socialism?
Yesterday Professor Waterston mentioned the Kibbutz system in Israel. When she brought this up I was reminded of these small communities in Scotland that I learned about several years ago (I believe they were called Shets) where the people in the community worked together and lived off the land. Next I thought of the Canadian family I work for, who cannot seem to go a day without mentioning how wonderful socialized medicine is. I’ve even been pondering the socialist ideals held by the Amish. While each of these communities has unique qualities (and perhaps flaws) they all claim to be working for the common good, and aim to improve the quality of life for everyone. The Jewish Virtual Library describes a Kibbutz as “a society dedicated to mutual aid and social justice.” Well, who wouldn’t want to be a part of a community working towards social justice? This got me thinking about the fear a lot of Americans have about socialism. We complain about social inequities but yet we are afraid to move towards a system that seeks to alleviate the stresses of social hierarchies. I’m wondering, specifically what types of people you think are drawn to communities like the Kibbutz, or the Shets, or even to socialist ideals? What are the characteristics of these people? Who is afraid of these systems? Are their fears legitimate? Who would benefit and who would lose out if our country were to turn towards a more socialist system? Please feel free to take this in any direction!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The following is not intended to offend, but instead to have real conversation about uncomfortable issues.
I believe it is unfortunate that the word socialism brings fear to a lot of Americans. Yet it is these same Americans who want to have good quality health care and education for little or no cost. Socialism is a system where there is collective ownership and free accessibility to production. Is this not what Americans want? Then if so, what is the problem?
The problem is that many of the social inequality issues that we face today are rooted in hatred that I believe derived out of slavery and still have yet to be resolved. How coincidental that majority of the poor and illiterate in America are Blacks. Creating a socialist society would mean that EVERYONE, including Blacks will have free and equal access to services that would essentially place everyone on equal ground. Blacks and Whites have never before in the history of America or even today been on equal grounds. I do not choose to make this a Black and White issue, it is inherently so. It is why Barack Obama had to give his famous speech on race during his presidential campaign, rather than pretend there were no tension between Blacks and Whites. Many Blacks would like to give Whites the benefit of the doubt, but they will forever wonder if the economy was not in such dire distress; forcing many whites to think about their pockets, would Obama be elected president?
I believe that the white Elites of America would rather sacrifice their lower-class Whites to suffer with Blacks, rather than see that Blacks are in a position to have true equal opportunity. It will not be easy to erase decades of conditioned hate, which Whites harbored for Blacks, though no one can deny that while we function in a controlled and racially tolerant state of being, we are on a course to do so.
Here is one of many similar true stories that occurred during the height of the discussion regarding desegregation. It shares the same concept that I believe is happening today:
Shortly after the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka In one of the school districts involved in the 1954 school desegregation cases, Prince Edward, Virginia, county officials decided to close public schools altogether rather than integrate. Tuition benefits were provided to children to attend private schools, but the only private schools operating in the county had white-only admission policies.
This small fact shows the extent to which White Elites are willing to go to maintain inequality.
Amanda, thank you for your post on the topic of socialism. Kerry-Ann, you are truly very passionate and you are right to mention race.
In response to Amanda, I do not believe socialism can work. The reason is that socialism does not account for individuals who will use the system as an opportunity to gain too much power. For example, China is a socialist country. While China is definitely on their rise to power, the country is guilty of serious human rights violation. For example, the arms trade with Sudan that helps the Sudanese government continue their genocide in Darfur. In addition,we have to take into account the loss of civil liberties. While I do believe socialism and communism sound great on paper, in real-life application, their realistic application has a different outcome that does not benefit the common good.
In response to Kerry-Ann's comment on Obama, racism and inequality. I was in D.C during the Inauguration and it was wonderful to see the celebration that took place on the streets when Obama gave his inauguration speech. However, there were many issues that a serious debate has not occured within the country.
These issues include whether American is post-racial; what does the election of Obama mean for the image of the African American male or the overwhelming incarceration of Black men in the prison system. What does Obama's election mean for the many minorities and races within America? One issue that personally touches me is what does Obama's election mean for Islamaphobia within the country?
As we saw during the election, being black in this county was alright but being a Muslim was not alright.
My last comment on all of this is that inequality is rooted in power and control. There are deep roots of inequality in our history. It is a long, bloody and tedious process of changing inequality. However, we have made leaps and Obama's election is proof of that.
The fact that he could run and win the most powerful seat and live in the White House that was made by slaves, that is a step in the positive direction.
I love the title of Amanda's post. It picks up adroitly on our seeming incapacity to tolerate ambivalence; our wish to define the poles, stick to one, and demonize the other. Socialism seems like the utopian ideal but, as Darakshan points out, life doesn't seem to imitate our dreams. The exact same can be said about capitalism.
If socialism means that those with the highest I.Q.s, biggest talents, best work ethic (everyone in our Vera class, perhaps) have no greater access to rewards than those lazy, dull, or (perish the thought!!!) average types, you may have a hard time convincing them to sign on.
The self-interest that capitalism depends upon fosters entrepreneurial spirit and technological innovation, even at the same time that it brings corruption and selfishness.
Since justice means providing some sustenance for those without equal access, it seems like the most workable system would be one where people can behavior capitalistically but be taxed at a high enough rate so as to redistribute the wealth enough to provide fair housing, medical care, etc. This is the French model, I believe.
In any case, I doubt you will do away with corruption in either system; each is subject to a fatal flaw: they have human participants.
In principle those living in communities like the Kibbutz, and Shets are driven by a sincere desire of equality, self sufficiency as a small community, and the sense of social distribution. Although, the idea of equal distribution is a noble principle those in favor of capitalism see socialization with suspicion. They see it as a system that is state or government controlled contrary to the self driven sense of enterprise in which, those well prepared and equipped have the opportunity to excel without limits. Many people in favor of capitalism believe that when the government or society puts a cap in earnings and achievements it will take away the incentive of corporations to excel for higher goals. In my opinion there is no question that the principle of fair distribution in a society is a paramount idea. However, I believe the way to achieve an equal distribution would be in a capitalism society with well established social laws. In other words, to take into consideration the underprivileged but without cutting the incentive of free enterprise that made America a leading country.
As professor Stein points out, both capitalism and socialism have their flaws. But, I do not think many are suggesting that the U.S. adopt full on socialism... just the integration of socialist ideals. Access to healthcare is a major issue in America and the socialization of medicine would in no way make America a socialist country.
So, if we drop the idea of "socialism" and focus only on universal healthcare, then who really loses? Drug companies are private, corrupt, and make multiple billions of dollars per year. Not only this, but they are guilty of pushing medications with inadequate testing and vaulting studies that have shown medications to have harmful side effects. As we all have witnessed, it is now O.K. for drugs to be marketed in the same way toys, food, and music are marketed….
In the movie Sicko by Michael Moore, he takes a group of people who have struggled with being able to afford medical attention/prescriptions to Cuba. What struck me was not that these people were able to get the medicines they needed for practically pennies, but that half the medications they had been taking for years were completely unnecessary!!!
If healthcare is a human right (which I think we all agree it should be), then I think we may have to separate it from the socialism that seems so scary; we need to take small steps.
In order to do this it needs to be made apparent how the privatization of healthcare and drug companies has made many billionaires and others dependent on drugs that are often completely futile (and often leaves many addicts, in the case of benzodiazepines and opioids, which perpetuates many issues).
I love this discussion! Kerry-Ann's and Darakshan's posts remind us of how many other factors are intertwined in considerations of our economic systems (good point about the Muslim thing in the election! though just as I write this, I think maybe the Muslim thing is also a thing about color -- if the US had a lot of white Muslims, would we feel differently about Islam?) So these things just make us ask more and more questions...)
So naturally, my comment raises more questions. As appealing as socialism is to me personally -- it appeals to my sense of justice and ethics -- when I think of socialist systems that work, such as the kibbutz, I think of how dependent that system is on its small scale, its moment in history and its semi-rural economy. When I was reading Karl Marx back in the day, it seemed completely convincing that his ideas would work in urban Germany. But even Marx would never have imagined applying his ideas to gigantic, largely rural Russia. So much about the success/failure of social systems is not intractable things about human nature but context, time, scale. I can imagine, for example, a much more just capitalist system -- in a more homogeneous, smaller population.
Ah! The fatal flaw of humans! Thanks Professor Stein.
It's something that we're all taught, right? That we're supposed to do great fantastic, wonderful things because humans are just that great, but we fail, over and over, because we're just too lazy or stupid or greedy. (Daniel Quinn, author of Ishmael addresses this idea in depth. )
I don't have the answers, but I think it's possible to foster communities that work (I have to believe that, because I need some reason to get up in the morning.) My 'unapologetic' idealism comes from working with young people-- they just GET IT, in a way that adults do not. There's a problem? Fix it. Generally, it seems, adults see that as simplistic, but how do they know, if they aren't trying?
In my opinion, drawing largely on Daniel Quinn's ideas, neither capitalism nor socialism are inherently better. It has to do with an entire mindset, an entire way of looking at the world.
As long as we view ourselves at odds with each other and our environment, we are never going to have a community that works. How does one thrive in an enemy's land? Oppression and persecution of an enemy has proven a popular technique among groups of people-- but we are at war with an enemy that cannot be dominated-- not that we don't try. We spend so much time fighting, fighting, fighting. Everything. All of the time.
... I've digressed from the topic. When the kibbutz were brought up in class, I thought of the radical faerie communities that exist throughout the world. They're very small enclaves of people, often they live in separate, self-sufficient, self-run communities. Their way of life is certainly different from our everyday life, but it works for them, and that's what it's about, right? Whatever works needs to be encouraged.
Renee you completely read my mind! I've often wondered why there are so many disagreements about actions that haven't even put into effect. Rather than trying to come up with a collective health insurance system or attempting to create self-sufficient communities, I feel that politicians and more importantly, society spend the majority of their time tied up in bureaucracy. Why can't we just try what works??
For all you juniors: Renee reminds me that I am teaching a course next semester called "All in the family" about the different ways that families are constituted.
One of the things we are studying is a group of teens who left the juvenile justice system to start their own "family" upstate; another is the all female "Womyn" communities around the country. As many have pointed out, both socialist and capitalist ideas florish best in small populations where there is a kind of personal responsibility toward an actual person who is seen, rather than a large invisible citizenry.
Does bureaucracy, rather than the type of "ism", spawn inequity and corruption?
I think we are all afraid of what we don’t know and what we cannot control. A social system is not creating social equality even if, from the outside, it seems it does. The reason why the socialist system is not implemented at a larger scale, it is because in the places where it was implemented, it failed. And, this failure created even more inequality. In the communities Amanda mentioned, it worked because of their size. If we try to implement it at a bigger scale, we will need to control people, which will not bring us social justice. People that are scared, people that feel they can not succeed in the outside world, are usually attracted to this type of community. When communism failed in 1989 in Romania everybody was happy and relieved, but it didn’t take long to find out that people became nostalgic for the previous system. Romania started to move slowly towards a so-called capitalist, democratic system in which everybody had to succeed based on their individual skills. We began to deal with unemployment and people were upset because they did not have a safe job anymore. However, they forgot that before, even with a safe job, they were over controlled and had no liberties and/or opportunities. Therefore, what is better? To have a job you are not good at or have the liberty to work hard and try to achieve what you want? These communities are too predictable and take away from people an important thing, the ability to dream. Individuals who stop dreaming also stop evolving. A democratic system needs to give people the opportunity to achieve their goals, even if in some cases, this creates an inequality.
In response to Kerry-Ann’s comment, I just want to say that inequality is always going to exist and it is not necessary a black and white issue. It is more an issue of supremacy, of the powerful suppressing the weak. I come from a country where I see a lot of inequality even though 98% of the population is white, Christian Orthodox. I don’t believe that a country with a predominantly white population would be able to elect an African American as president if they wouldn’t see him as their equal. You don’t choose to be ruled by someone you consider inferior to you.
Before our discussion I’d never heard of the Kibbutz system, so I decided to look into it. We are considering Kibbutzzim in for its successes, but there are some aspects of it that are questionable. Children were taken away from their parents and “Children’s Societies” were created so that professionals could raise the children of the Kibbutz. Some reports describe there being a disproportionate number of males, making the Kibbutz system highly male-dominated. There were also psychological studies revealing negative (and some positive) effects of the Kibbutz lifestyle.
I don’t mean to eschew the Kibbutz system or its successes just because it is radically different from American lifestyle. But, it seems that ideologies are best, or most purely, applied on smaller scales. In America we must take into account our country’s diversity and size. Kibbutz communities were often formed around religious values, which was probably extremely unifying for the members. In a country like America are there any ideals or values we could all agree on to build community around?
I think the most realistic form of socialism we can reach for is the French model that Prof. Stein referred to early on. The extreme uneven distribution of wealth is neither fair nor efficient. Without changing some of our fundamental capitalist values, equaling opportunity through taxation and even better minimum wage laws would offer some relief to the problem.
Post a Comment