The Sage Observer

Socialism

Exacerbated by the candidacy for the presidency of Senator Bernie Sanders who claims to be a Democratic Socialist, the subject of Socialism keeps raising its, some might say ugly, head in the news these days. Unfortunately, in our culture the word Socialism has become a pejorative. Just the sound of the word creates animosity in spite of the fact that most of us don’t really know what Socialism really is. We only know the very thought of it makes us mad. In defense of our position, we may use the words free markets and capitalism; but most of us can’t really provide a good explanation of what these are either. If you don’t believe me, ask around. Ask what these things are; or, even more difficult, see if you can get your answers in writing. In almost every case those whom you question will not be able to answer. They aren’t dumb. Up to now, they just haven’t had the need to know.

So what is Socialism, Capitalism, or a Free Market? For this venue, I believe as simple an explanation as possible will suffice. In short, Socialism (not to be confused with Communism) is a system wherein ownership and management, i.e. governance, of the means of production and related systems, are by the people. Competition is minimal if at all. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system based on private ownership of the means of production, the creation of goods and services for profit, the accruing of profits to a capitalist class, and a system of salary and wage labor for the workers. Decision-making and investment is determined by the owners and/or managers of the factors of production. Competition is foremost with a philosophy of “survival of the fittest, let the devil take the hindmost”. As to free markets, no matter what others may tell you, they only really exist in the classroom. In the real world, markets are affected by manipulation of one kind or another, monopoly, and/or price fixing.

In the end, both Socialism and Capitalism are self-defeating. Generally speaking, without competition, under Socialism everybody wants to receive, nobody wants to give. By its very definition, Capitalism is self-defeating because, in the end, only the winner, i.e. the strongest, remains—then it is no longer Capitalism. As a result, all that is left is some form of dictatorship, i.e. an autocracy, oligarchy, etc. I think you can already see that in the progression of our democratic republic today (unless we do something about it before it is too late, that is).

Hopefully having cleared the air on this to this point, where are we now?  I’ll tell you how I view our nation’s status and you can (and you will) see for yourself. In all candor, our nation and our people, i.e. YOU, are being literally raped by an Oligarchy of the Corporatocracy and Power Elite, operating through a Shadow Government surreptitiously controlling our nation through our government elected by us, we the people, and bribed and manipulated by them. They, that oligarchy, even write our laws. We vote (some of us—that is) and pay the bills. They rule and take the spoils. You have heard the expression, “to the victor belong the spoils”. You have heard from many sources of the course our income has taken over the past forty years, the disappearing middle-class, and of the growing disparity in income and wealth. You have even felt the pain. You have to know where you stand, i.e. your status, in these matters. You surely know.

These people have owned the Republican Party from the beginning; but, now, in recent years, they have done the unthinkable. They have begun to take over the party of the people, the Democratic Party—the only hope the people, we in the 90%, have had left to represent our needs, the party of Roosevelt, the party of Truman, and, yes, the party of Carter, after which we begun to go downhill.

But “Avast”, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The honorable Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, has thrown his hat in the ring for president. He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. I call him a Liberal. Everything he proposes is liberal. Nothing he proposes is any more Socialist than we are now. Nothing he proposes is any more Socialist than we have ever been in the past. Was our bailout of General Motors Socialist? Was our bailout of the mortgage industry Socialist? Is anything we support, our guarantee of the risk, with the private industry receiving the profits, Socialist? Let me tell you what one of the greatest, if not the greatest, leaders in all history had to say about Socialism vs. Liberalism in a speech one hundred years ago; and it is just as true today:

I want to-night to speak about these cross-currents; and let me first say a word about Socialism. There are a great many Socialists whose characters and whose views I have much respect for—men some of whom I know well, and whose friendship I enjoy. A good many of those gentlemen who have delightful, rosy views of a noble and brilliant future for the world, are so remote from hard facts of daily life and of ordinary politics that I am not very sure that they will bring any useful or effective influence to bear upon the immediate course of events. To the revolutionary Socialist, whether dreamer or politician, I do not appeal as the Liberal candidate for Dundee. I recognise that they are perfectly right in voting against me and voting against the Liberals, because Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. There is a great gulf fixed. It is not only a gulf of method, it is a gulf of principle. There are many steps we have to take which our Socialist opponents or friends, whichever they like to call themselves, will have to take with us; but there are immense differences of principle and of political philosophy between our views and their views. Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly. These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will agree I am right in drawing at this election between our respective policies and moods. Don’t think that Liberalism is a faith that is played out; that it is a creed to which there is no expanding future. As long as the world rolls round, Liberalism will have its part to play—grand, beneficent, and ameliorating—in relation to men and States. The truth lies in these matters, as it always lies in difficult matters, midway between extreme formulas. It is in the nice adjustment of the respective ideas of collectivism and individualism that the problem of the world and the solution of that problem lie in the years to come.

Winston Churchill
October 11, 1906

One hundred years ago, Winston Churchill called it Liberalism. I call it Progressivism. The truth of the matter is that some markets are better adapted to collective governance and others are better governed as regulated “free markets”. In no event of which I can think should we allow Laissez-faire Capitalism to prevail in our economic markets. How many times do we have to suffer thieves in our hen houses? Our government is permeated with them. Surely we should not over regulate. Surely we should eliminate the liars, cheaters, and thieves in our government and restore the will of our people to power. We should elect Bernie Sanders to the presidency and we should elect the right people to support his efforts. All we have to do is get out and do it.

In the mean time, this is Ronald Miller, www.sageobserver.blogspot.com signing off. Email me at mtss86@comcast.net