In every age scientific reasoning
takes a beating from entrenched prejudices, fears and hatreds. In the most
extreme cases life itself has been the price: the Spanish inquisition, the
Salem witch trials, the Holocaust, lynchings, etc. Of recent vintage we have
the vilification of socialism. It predates Senator Joe McCarthy, but that
period — which gave us another “ism” —
etched into the heart of our body politic the idea that socialism is the
epitome of evil. Such was to be expected. There has never been a socio-economic
system in which those in power passively and peacefully surrendered that power
to a more equitable system.
Yes, I believe that socialism is
more equitable than capitalism. You may ask, “What about the failure of the
Soviet Union and those other Eastern European countries, and the atrocities
committed under Joseph Stalin?” Good questions. But you may also ask why China
and Cuba, both socialist countries with leading Communist Parties, have survived.
The setbacks in Eastern Europe can’t
be adequately analyzed here, but they don’t prove the invalidity of socialism.
They only show that socio-economic change, whenever it’s on history’s agenda,
must contend with human fallibility as well as the power of the established
system.
In any case, socialism ought to be
considered for what it actually is, not for what we are told it is by those who
would be out of business if we went in that direction. While the classical
definition of socialism is public ownership of the basic means of production,
it also includes aspects we already enjoy, such as Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, and the many federal departments established for the betterment of
the entire population.
Fortunately, today’s world is not
the one of the Cold War and McCarthyism. Recent polls show that some 20 percent
of Americans now view socialism favorably.
Witness the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders, an avowed democratic socialist. The word democratic is well-chosen,
whether or not Sanders favors an all-out socialist state, because the intent of
socialism is to advance democracy, not curtail it.
Sanders not only nearly won the
Iowa caucus, but trounced Hillary Clinton to win the New Hampshire primary. How
far he will go toward the Democratic nomination for president is unknown, but
that he has come this far is an indication that the American people are fed up
with current economic and political conditions and are ready to entertain “democratic
socialist” ideas.
I don’t mean to suggest that socialism
is a panacea — all milk and honey, instant peace and happiness. The economic
and social complexities in modern society, including human fallibility, will be
negative factors in whatever social system is established.
Cynics would have us believe that
greed is endemic in humans, and will undermine any socio-economic structure.
History tells a different story. Wasn’t the overthrow of the monarchy in France
an advance toward democracy and equality? Wasn’t our own revolution a defeat
for colonialism? Wasn’t our Civil War a defeat for slavery? Didn’t the
Bolshevik revolution bring an end to Czarism?
True, as I noted earlier, none of
these historic events brought an end to injustice. But they were steps forward.
Greed and oppression have always been forced to give way to greater equality
and justice. So it will be in the future. As humans change society, so society
changes humans. No one has been burned at the stake in a long time.
We’re not close to taking that
qualitative leap to becoming a socialist state, but the economic catastrophes
through which we’re now struggling should at least give us pause to question
the inequities of capitalism, and wonder whether this system is the last and
best system possible. I’m sure that’s what King Louis XVI and King George III
thought about their systems.
