Should we increase or decrease the use of socialism in America?
Definitions of Capitalism and Socialism.
The two main differences between socialism and capitalism relate to a) ownership of the means of production and b) the incentivization to deliver the best products and services most efficiently and effectively with the means of production. Socialism also requires that the goods and services be delivered to the largest number of people within the society that has a need for the goods and services.
a. Ownership of the means of production. In capitalism, they are privately owned; in socialism they are publicly owned or said another way, the means of production are owned by “the government”. And to many Americans, especially Republicans, the government owning and running things sounds bad and is something we should minimize by privatizing as many enterprises as possible.
b. Incentivization. By that I mean, how the members of a given enterprise are incentivized to deliver the best products and services efficiently and effectively. With capitalism, it is the “Invisible hand” identified by Adam Smith that brings this about. The private owners of the means of production do what they do so that they can generate the most profits possible for the owners. A pejorative term for this motivation is “greed”. In pure capitalism, there is no incentive to provide for the public good, unless this coincides with making a profit. So, sweat-shops, child labor, unsafe working conditions, monopolies, pollution, and any number of other bad things will and have occurred unless some entity establishes rules and regulations that prevent private companies from unduly harming the public. While that regulating entity could conceivably be The Church or the Rotary Club, most societies delegate this task to government.
Background.
In his 2019 State of the Union address, President Trump declared that the US “will never be a socialist country.” Actually, we already are a socialist country in many aspects of our economy. Social security, Medicare, public education and law enforcement are all services managed by the government which is owned by all citizens. In America, most goods and services are generated by capitalist-based businesses, others by government managed institutions, and still others by non-profits. All, including the private profit-based companies must adhere to government regulations. Pure, unmitigated capitalism rarely exists in America today.
An example of where an increase of government control (socialism) may have been beneficial is “The Great Recession of 2008.” It was caused a combination of an overly greedy financial industry that opted to go all in on sub-prime mortgages and by a failure of the US government to adequately regulate the financial industry. It began with the Clinton Administration changing the Glass Stegall Act which deregulated investment banks. Had the federal government maintained tighter controls on the investment banks and had the Bush Administration not been so lax in exercising oversight of the financial industry, the Great Recession may well have been avoided or substantially mitigated.
The Point.
Many people, however, especially Republicans and Libertarians, feel that one of the biggest problems facing America is that there is too much government intervention and regulation. They believe that America would be much better served if government was significantly less involved in our lives.
Counterpoint.
Another perspective is that there are important challenges facing America where the government is better suited to address the challenge than the private sector. Examples include addressing climate change and delivering basic healthcare to all Americans. However, for government to be able to fulfill it different missions well, we must change the culture in the US such that public service agencies are able to attract and retain high quality people as public servants.
Point 1: Should not use Socialism because it is Evil.
David Lakvold
Che’ was a socialist and I like how it ended for him. Only with socialism everyone gets the same end as Che’. Viva la revolution! /heavy sarcasm followed by a sigh of disgust that this evil idea hasn’t found its way to the garbage pile of horrible ideas. Socialism is the Harvey Weinstein / Jeffery Epstein of political systems; it is political pedophilia, it is rape of the productive by a large mob of lemmings.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spoke of the evils of socialism. Here is a man that was a communist and agreed with the tenants of socialism but soured and then absolutely rejected all socialism. Trying to redefine the word to lessen it as an evil descriptive term is an attempt to re-write history. Recent history, last 100 years, is filled with millions of socialism’s dead victims. There is no middle ground, no compromise between capitalism and socialism.
Counterpoint 1: If either of the two systems is evil, based on the New Testament, it is Capitalism, not Socialism.
As demonstrated in The Point above, many of my conservative FB friends contend that capitalism is good while socialism should be relegated to the same category as abortion: It is inherently evil. If someone considers something to be inherently evil, then there is nothing left to discuss: it must be opposed.
So, let’s address the morality of socialism and capitalism. For advice on what is good or evil, I propose we turn to the New Testament and especially the teachings of Jesus Christ. While Jesus never addressed the topics of homosexuality or even abortion, he gave a lot of attention to money, wealth, and economics. Capitalism is driven by the desire for wealth and the hard and devoted work to acquire as much of it as possible. One of the greatest capitalists in history was John D. Rockefeller. This question was posed to him by a reporter: “Mr. Rockefeller, you are now the richest man in the world and yet you are still working to accumulate more wealth. How much money is enough?” His response was “Just a little bit more.” Capitalism is based on people wanting and worrying about money and possessions.
What did Jesus have to say about that perspective? Matthew Chapters 5 and 6 tells us – especially the last part of Chapter 6.24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. 25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[e]? ….. 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ ….33 ..seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself.
An even more direct condemnation of capitalism by Jesus is called the “Parable of the Rich Fool” found in Luke 12:16-21. Take a moment to find and read it.
Folks, it is capitalism, not socialism that is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. Above he tells his followers, don’t be capitalists. For those who have accumulated wealth he says, sell what you have and give it to the poor and follow me. He condemns rich people time and again. In Acts Chapter 2, the economic system the followers of Jesus are practicing goes even beyond socialism: “44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. ”
If either system is inherently evil based on the teachings of Jesus, it is capitalism, not socialism. So, can we now move to considering where a socialist construct for a particular industry may better serve our society and not dismiss it out of hand as being evil?