Currently, a self-identified socialist - or 'Democratic Socialist' - is leading the Democratic Primary for President and some anti-caps are pretty stoked about it. Cool. But here's the problem. The issues Bernie Sanders is bringing to the table regarding healthcare, education, social responsibility, etc aren't the logical conclusion to 'Capitalism'. In fact, all those countries he gives accolades to for providing healthcare to all their citizens are, wait for it...capitalist countries. You see, that's how you pay for things. Want everyone to be able to get a quadruple bypass without paying a bill? You need someone to be making enough money to pay for it. Which means you need money coming in.
With much talk of how glorious and wonderful the 'Scandinavian Model' is, it seems odd that these self-avowed 'Democratic Socialists' ignore that the Scandinavian Model thrives on and celebrates...Capitalism. These countries heavily invest in private industry and start-ups for their social betterment. Those companies then pay into a system that benefits everyone.
Why is America so different? We have a lot of inept and inefficient social programs for a couple of reasons. For one, our division of powers between state and federal makes implementation difficult. But even more importantly, American culture differs from European, Israeli, Canadian, Central American concepts of social responsibility and the idea of morality tied to monetary success.
Americans are ruggedly individual. In some ways, this serves us. We follow passions, we chart new courses, we try new things. The idea that we should limit ourselves is often foreign to us. But as a society, this perspective is a huge problem, and it is the root cause of our lack of action on crucial social safety nets. We bring in plenty of revenue to take on a number of these tasks but we don't. Why? Because 'government aid' is seen as an unearned handout, and poverty a moral failing - lazy.
Bezos isn't stopping single-payer healthcare - Joe Smith who doesn't want to pay for other people does. Bill Gates isn't a hindrance in 'free' college - Nancy who thinks it is bullshit that she paid $30k for college and the kids behind her will get it for free does. And that's not capitalism's fault. Plenty of capitalist countries yield populations who believe that it is a society's responsibility to take care of those who cannot care for themselves, who believe that healthcare and educations are both rights. The difference is, these countries have cultures that promote empathy and compassion in a way we do not. These societies don't look at economic success or failure as a moral issue as Americans do.
Perhaps, one reason for this - at least in Europe - is that those societies have had defined class systems for much longer. Old and New money were well defined and people rarely moved out of their class. In America, on the other hand, class is fluid, harder to pin down. Most Americans are 'new money'. And so, the idea that 'anyone' can make it if they try hard enough seems self-evidence even if the reality is that poverty and wealth are more inherited than we want to believe and privilege is real.
All of these issues are fascinating and play a role in the startling differences in social priorities between America and most of the rest of the developed world, but that's a discussion for another day. The main point is that capitalism isn't why we don't have the services that people want. Capitalism isn't making you poorer. By all measures, everyone in America is earning more now than 40 years ago. It is true, however, that the top earners are earning wealth faster than the bottom earners. That's not the same thing as the poor getting poorer.
In fact, countries that remove capitalism as a way to pay for these social safety nets fail time and time again. I know, Telesur says Venezuala was destroyed by 'THE CAPITALISTS' and Cuba would be Paradise if only America would have traded with them (despite every other major economy in the world trading with them). But let's get reasonable. The fact is, nationalizing the entire economy and drastically limiting who could make an independent living is DIRECTLY responsible for mass starvation in Venezuela. And, do I really even need to get into the Soviet Union?
What would happen if we allowed those who know how to generate wealth to continue to do it while also building social safety nets with a reorganized government that works for the people not for reelection? What would happen if we ended the war machine and, instead, allocated money to figuring out how to fix our broken education system? The problem isn't how we earn the money. The problem is how we USE the money. And we can't fix that problem until we get Joe, Nancy, and every other person who thinks he or she is an island - in no need of social services - to embrace empathy and compassion for their fellow man.
Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, etc, none of them are going to fix the broken parts of our society until the American people stop looking at struggling people and think they are lazy, stupid, and undeserving of aid. Because, if you radically change our economic structure without changing the American blind spot for empathy and understanding, all you will get is a selfish proletariat deciding who is and isn't deserving of the state services and why. On the other hand, if you can infuse American society with a strong dose of compassion for their fellow global citizens, passing things like single-payer healthcare, subsidized education, clean needle centers, mental health facilities, etc would be a breeze.
'Late Stage Capitalism' isn't killing us. American self-centeredness is.
No comments:
Post a Comment