Drawing the Line in Ideology

EDITORIAL

For all those paying attention or who have noticed the recent clash of ideologies in the intermicronational community, this has been written to both state the facts and to save the insults. For everyone else, this was written as a solution to the problems faced in the choice between Capitalism and Socialism. To all Capitalists, I will tell you now that this is not a bashing, however it sounds. And to Socialists and the like, do not plan on a five page worship, however it sounds.

 

Socialism and Capitalism. Two ideologies separated by a hundred year plus history of love and hate. One side that claims an equal footing for all, one side that claims equal opportunities for all. As of recent, we have seen these two viewpoints come to a rather nasty head in the Great Ideological Conflict 2.0, where ideological debate on the advantages and disadvantages of both systems turn more so for the personal attacking of each other’s character.

 

Why does this happen anyway? Well, the first problem that one encounters in these encounters is the ability for both sides to be right and for both sides to be wrong, and at the same time. Capitalism itself has seen a long history of well use and disuse. In some places its advantages have raised the overall standard of living. Nations in the West have a bountiful market of production, and there is time to enjoy life for the average person. However, the issue remains that, on this Capitalist planet (as it is the current ruling system), entire continents, as in Africa, have befallen the ranks of poverty. The nominal response to a poor person from a Capitalist may be that hard work bequests good pay. As a Socialist may point out, an entire continent can only have so many lazy people, or those who enjoy living in shacks.

Then we enter the domain of the Socialist system, or even the Communists. Problem with them is, they never have actually gotten a system to work in any nation so far under their name. But one unmistakable fact is that the infamous Socialist nations, which supposedly show the horror of the ideology, do not deserve to be booked under “Failed Socialist States”, but “Failed Totalitarian States”. One must remember that it was not the economics that failed the nations, it was the politics. The USSR, to be named, may or may not have even been Socialist, but their problem was Totalitarianism. When it came time to commit the holy act of Marxism, distribution of allocated resources, whoever did not please the leaders did not get fed that day. The Ukraine can probably relate to this issue quite well. Additionally, I doubt myself that government officials were purged from above because Ivan got the same pay for farming last week as Dmitri. I would be faithful in the fact that the said officials were purged because those above them say them as threats to their power, a classic definition of a Totalitarian state. The greatest misconception of a Socialist state is that it advocates a limited opposition and authoritarian control, by a dictator, soviet or otherwise. This is faulty by definition; a Socialist state advocates an economic policy. To oppress a people requires a social policy, the topic of Authoritarianism. It is completely possible to have both an Authoritarian and a Libertarian Socialist nation.

 

So what is Socialism then? Socialism promotes a decrease in the gap between the wealthy and poor. That way, people would be paid more for effort and less for runaway profit. The nationalization of industry occurs, so that wages and profits would be allocated in order to best benefit a wider range of people than what a single individual CEO would enjoy. Socialism is this: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

The irony of this entire debate is the fact that a simple Socialist system would be a not too far off version of Capitalism. In this form, we would take the values of a regulated market and personal security highly. In fact, it is possible to accept Socialism as a biasly named “Honorable Capitalism”. The words and ideas of Franklin Delano Roosevelt reflect this idea the greatest. During the Great Depression, the economy of the nation crashed and people were left jobless and poor. Now, FDR’s successful solutions to this were fast to keeping America as an institution based on Capitalism. He never advocated for a “Socialist America” or for the Red Revolution, and he opposed the works of what were considered Communist nations.

He advocated for pay that could actually allow for one to operate a normal life, and complained that “minimum” wages did not compensate for true costs of living:

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”

He also condemned the runaway profits of high ranking corporate officials, and for those who take advantage of their own private power without giving back to the people. What this may be explicitly noted however, is the wording of this quote. FDR did not state that higher wages for some positions would be harmful; he supported them as they would allow for people to truthfully work harder and be paid for their true efforts:

“We find our population suffering from old inequalities, little changed by vast sporadic remedies. In spite of our efforts and in spite of our talk, we have not weeded out the over privileged and we have not effectively lifted up the underprivileged. Both of these manifestations of injustice have retarded happiness. No wise man has any intention of destroying what is known as the profit motive; because by the profit motive we mean the right by work to earn a decent livelihood for ourselves and for our families. We have, however, a clear mandate from the people, that Americans must forswear that conception of the acquisition of wealth which, through excessive profits, creates undue private power over private affairs and, to our misfortune, over public affairs as well. In building toward this end we do not destroy ambition, nor do we seek to divide our wealth into equal shares on stated occasions. We continue to recognize the greater ability of some to earn more than others. But we do assert that the ambition of the individual to obtain for him and his a proper security, a reasonable leisure, and a decent living throughout life, is an ambition to be preferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power.”

What Socialists additionally oppose is that corporations overrun the fiber and community of the nation and the world in order to provide for themselves as a wealth machine. FDR stated the fear of Socialists: that corporations will take control through private power and inflict their own wants above that of the people:

“Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power. The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living. Both lessons hit home. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”

 

One thing that must be realized is that Capitalism is not bad, and Socialism is not bad. Capitalism allows for a system in which work and effort can be made tangible to be used for things to make the hassles of life more enjoyable. These efforts can be move around, accepted in other places, and allow for others to enjoy the touch of their good day’s work. As a matter of fact, Capitalism is one of the most inherently secure systems possible to allow for an economy of any sorts. The issue that must be adverted is that someone will take advantage of the system. That is the duty of Socialism. Socialism can create a Capitalist society in which private power can be curved and an ensured minimum of livelihood enjoyed.

If rich people only truly were so because of hard work, class problems would not be developed into major issues as they are now. It is the fact that wealth is either handed down for nothing at all, or given through a lucky break, while harder workers gain pennies, or no cents, on the dollar, is why systems such as modern American Capitalism are so criticized. Socialism intends to make capitalism honest and available to all persons. In fact, Socialism advocates Capitalism, because it makes utilizing the system and earning from it a great deal more organized. If you were to nationalize industries, Capitalism would only be furthered by giving all people a regulated and equal opportunity to work above the rest to earn that higher position, and therefore a higher wage. Capitalism does not operate when it advocates that three people were paid a billion dollars last year, no one will ever work hard if only three random people will ever have that chance. They will work harder in a Capitalist system if there are a thousand jobs paying three million dollars that the best workers will earn.

My point in all this is for people to stop arguing. What they can realize, is that the greatest system is not either “just Socialism” or “just Capitalism”, it is the both of them together. I am a socialist, because since we live in a Socialismless Capitalist society, I have to become part of the movement that advocates for the missing portion of the utopian puzzle. Because Capitalism can be part of utopia, it just matters if you want a happy producing utopia or a happy campfire utopia. There is nothing wrong with the happy campfire utopias, but they don’t work with over a dozen people. So please, get your facts straight and stop insulting each other. It does not help to insult people with mistaken facts, because then you will be insulted for not having your facts straight with a likely armada of mistaken facts. Most of your complaints against each system are correct. Great, give yourself a cookie and sit down. Finally, stop treating each ideology like a cult. They are political systems of thought, not simply groups of people huddling around a book listening to it with dead minds. They have historically both had good and bad points for themselves and against the other, and they have been made by both honest people trying to make the world better, and those who wanted to get some power out of it.

The only hope we have as humanity is to find a common ground that helps all people. As soon as more die hard partisans come into play, we are doomed. I like not being doomed, it allows me to sleep better at night, and it might help you all do the same too.

 

As a one last statement, I would like to leave you with the transcript of FDR’s speech on the Second Bill of Rights. The document, designed around the intentions of Honest Capitalism I spoke of earlier, promoted a group of freedoms for Americans in order to complement their political rights in the Bill of Rights with economic rights:

“It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”

 

-By: James E Wilary, First Secretary of A1, Leader of the Socialist Party of A1