It’s strange to see people afraid of the very thing that makes us supreme on this planet, our ability to work together. Very little has been accomplished by the single person alone in our history. We’re tempted to point out all the inventions that have been brought forth by the great minds throughout the ages, the steam engine, the electric light and countless other additions to our technological and cultural heritage. But we often ignore that these inventors worked in lands cleared by thousands of their forbears, in houses built by armies of skilled craftsmen and lived in countries groomed and protected by collective governments. How much would have been accomplished by inventors who had to build their own houses, till their own fields, hunt for their own food and defend it all on a daily basis?
No one has ever gotten rich, famous or done heroic or great merciful deeds within in the vacuum of their own existence. We all build on the work of others, live on the lands they civilized, eat the food they harvest, drive the roads they built and live by the laws and rights handed down by other humans. So why would we worry about making working together more integral to our culture?
Fear of losing choices is the most likely culprit, even though we live and die by the actions of others, we value our own personal space. The philosophies we develop for ourselves, the worlds we build to around us to spend our lives in and the values we hold dear. We want to pick our own spouses, our homes, our jobs and so much more. It’s a trade off, a balance between the community and the individual. These are choices that we’ve been making since the dawn of our time.
We make those hard choices to serve the community because of the overwhelming benefits of working together. Working together gives us educators to teach our children, policemen to patrol the streets we live on, doctors to treat us when we are ill and insurance to pay for it. We are, and always have been social creatures, it’s the basis of why we survived to dominate the planet. Our “socialism” allows more of us to cooperate on more endeavors than any other creature.
Defining human rights, by it’s very nature, is a socialist function. We determine how we should all be treated, how each can live and what freedoms we enjoy in congress with one another. And together we’ve done a pretty good job. Not to say we’re done by any means. Every day we expand our “rights” to include new things our ancestors couldn’t have imagined including in a list of “Basic Human Rights.”
But all these rights depend on the cooperation of millions of others, we all give ourselves these things, together. They belong to all of us, or none of us. That’s socialism, and it’s freedom, and it’s life on Earth because we say it is. That’s the “we” who knows it all costs something, in fact quite a bit. The real cost of living together with our “inalienable rights” is choice. No longer can we safely choose to shoot our neighbor in a dispute, nor can we choose dump our garbage in the public street or attempt to deny others the very rights we hold so dear.
So when others cry “that’s Socialism!” and gnash their teeth, I often wonder what they think everything else is. The good people who take the home interest deduction on their federal income taxes and then turn to complain about Social Security. The loyal Americans who’ve fought for this country and now descry the aliens who want to be part of it. The pious folk who are stunned when there is an outcry over a particular religious organization’s ability to deny their flock the rights of every other citizen. The same rights America’s social contract the Constitution guarantees them.
Socialism is about providing a baseline for living, but not necessarily one for outcome. We are all socialists when we talk about inalienable rights guaranteed to each of us, socialists when we build public works anyone can use, and very much socialists when we vote democratically to elect an official or pass a measure. Socialists are people who live together, work together, make decisions together and act together for the good of all, just like we do. We don’t have to like the word, but it’s a little silly, it’s the secret to our success.
The fear of losing choice is natural, but socialism isn’t about that, it’s about providing choices to the widest number of us possible. We do spend our own choice so the the rest of us may have some as well, but the payoff is guaranteed choices for ourselves and our children. We’d all like to have a world where no one will go hungry, where no one will be denied the basics of a good life, good homes, good educations and good jobs. The question is what choices are we willing to give up for those things? What if that meant giving up the choice, or chance, to be fabulously wealthy or powerful? For some of us that’s way too far. For some of us giving up the choice to be better educated than anyone else is too far, or just giving up having a better life than others is too much. Giving up advantages is always difficult and any system that works toward fairness means giving up advantages.
However, in the socialistic world we’ve built for ourselves inequity is the enemy, not necessarily inequality. For every person who falls to ruin while others rise to riches, we are damaged as a whole. While we worship them, our success has always depended on numbers not heroes. We inherently understand that every life wasted in squalor, ignorance and disease holds us all back, although we don’t always act that way. And yet, in a larger sense we always tend toward serving the larger population, the greater numbers, don’t we? Toward uplifting the masses of the lowest over serving the singular most high. That’s been our path of progress, our methodology of success. We can complain about the evils of “Socialism” all we want, but it’s what got us to where we are today.
Copyright Prentiss Gray 2011
Prentiss Gray is a writer and columnist and currently writes the Domesti-Tech Blog for Gannett. He can be reached through his website at www.prentissgray.com
Prentiss Gray
Prentiss Gray is a writer/columnist/blogger from New Jersey. After 27 years as a Information Systems consultant and the death of his wife of 21 years, he returned to his roots as a writer, creating the national column Adventures of the Lone Dad/ Daddy chronicles. He now Blogs for Gannet on domestic technology, and writes feature pieces and stories for general publication. He is a member of the American Society of Journalists and Authors and contributes to Bloomberg News, Daily Record, Gannett and the Tribune Syndicate.
Follow Me:
Prentiss, you are simply playing with semantics. We all know when we speak of socialism what we are reffereing to. I think the real question is how much do we want to socialize? What allows for equal opportunity? I tend to be more liberal than most conservatives and believe healthcare and education in many cases could be underwritten by the government. I don’t like it but just can’t stand the idea of someone going without healthcare or the chance to be educated if they show the initiative. I feel we have gone way overboard with our welfare as it stands right now. All we are doing is creating a class of people that expects to be fed and contribute absolutely nothing in return. Life is tough! Get over it!
Report this comment
Yup, I agree. Education and healthcare should be underwritten and there should be a safety net, but not without strings. The system we have now needs work, no doubt about it. It will probably be more expensive before it gets cheaper. It’s just like fixing anything.
Although I disagree that “We all know when we speak of socialism what we are reffereing to.” I think that’s part of the problem. I hear a lot about Socialism being about getting something for nothing, or government controlling everything, but I don’t think that’s it at all. It’s about contributing to society as a member and being part of the solutions required. It’s not about giving up everything, nor is it about everyone being somehow equal, whatever that means (even if that was possible). It doesn’t matter what you call it, maybe “a fair deal, everyday, with a safety net for those who fall.” We have the power to say what life is, we don’t have to just shrug and say “That’s life.”
Report this comment
Prentiss, this is a good piece of writing and I agree with you. We are socialists in the sense we try to provide for all classes of the economic levels. My first husband abandoned me and our three little girls with a No Fault divorce. He was a city employee so I did get half his pay check through Friend of the Court checks. I HAD to apply for food stamps and Medicaid because my children were hungry and we all had to take of our health. I did not own a car but walked or bussed to work part-time jobs. I even applied for government grants to further my education. The American people of my generation whose parents lived through the 1930′s Depression are proud and willing to work hard to provide for their families.
Report this comment
It’s interesting that people of your generation get it but the next don’t seem to. I wonder why that is?
Report this comment
Prentiss, I complement you on a well-written piece, especially in light of your recent handicap due to saw malfunction.
But I would say to you that cooperation and socialism are not nearly the same thing. It is not fear that many feel about socialism but rather scorn or contempt. Rather than to appear to demean you or your very well written article, I will refer you or any interested reader to some explanation as to how I feel about socialism, and why:
http://www.speakwithoutinterruption.com/site/2011/04/freedom-opprtunity-vs-self-sacrifice-envy/
http://www.speakwithoutinterruption.com/site/2011/10/the-bureau-of-redistribution/
Report this comment
Prentiss, in all honesty this article reminds me of not only putting lip stick on a pig but including high heels a dress and falsies.
Report this comment
Michael, I admire your restraint and the link to your article made for good reading.
Report this comment
I don’t mean to demean your worship of Capitalism Michael, in fact I have nothing against fair markets of all types. I’ve certainly done well by them. However, socialism has a lot to bring to the tables as well. Insurance is based on socialism, the spreading of risk across a wide population, I don’t think many would say that insurance isn’t a good business. The point being that a fear of anything that smacks of “Socialism” is foolish.
For example if a single payer system would better control the cost of healthcare while providing the same or better coverage, who wouldn’t be for it? Take a look at the Swiss or French models for good examples of systems that are better, at least for the customers, than our own semi-free market based one. Any Capitalist will advise you to always go with the best price for the most coverage.
There are lots more examples where socialist models simply work better, disaster relief for instance. if your little piece of Texas was chewed up by a tornado, could that community rebuild itself or would you rather have Federal relief funds to help? Or perhaps you’d rather take out commercial and personal loans or maybe just take what you could and walk away? Even Low interest recovery loans are subsidized by the Government, yet another socialist maneuver.
All the government investment in the space program, high speed computing, early research that made the Internet possible, and even the methodology for Fracking is due to funds collected by socialistic methods and invested for the common good. We may not always agree on the particular investment or expenditure, but the socialist methodology works. It’s as old as mankind itself, been around since the first family when someone went out and spent a dangerous day hunting so the rest could eat. In fact there’s quite a bit to be said for being the “good provider.”
Steve, I’d answer you directly but I don’t get what you mean.
These are all examples off people working together and paying together to protect and enhance their neighbors lives as well as their own. It’s not a bad thing.
Report this comment
Prentiss, somethings like healthcare for instance are good examples. Our lives and the lives of the ones we love are basicaly held hostage. The Dr’s, nurses etc have invested a ot of money as well as large portions of thier lives educating themselves and deserve to make some good money. Hospitals have outlayed many millions of dollars and again deserve to make a profit. Yet many still cannot afford this. Most patients are not turned down and the bills are often picked up by the state, or written off and factored into the cost of the ones who do pay. My gut reaction is to say the government should create a medical core like the military paid for by taxpayers and all employees are educated and paid by the government. But then when I think about it, what if food gets too expensive and cars get too expensive, should the government create a farmers core or an industrial core? The implications are that lack of incentive would start to stifle innovation. Somewhere in between lies the answer.
Food, shelter, healthcare, clothing and education are all cannot do withouts? In a good solid economy none of these are an issue for healthy people. Folks with physical or mental problems are usuall covered under present programs. Problem we are having is that education and healthcare costs have risen above what a substantial amount of people in this country can pay, the instutions know that our lives and futures can be held for ransom by these items and take full advantage of it. I feel publicly funded institutions could be utilized to some extent to remove some of the leverage without destroying incentive.
By lipstick on a pig I simply meant you painted a very rosy picture of a faded flower LOL.
Report this comment
Steve, I certainly agree on Healthcare, entrenched interests aside. I think you point out some of the downfalls of taking a socialistic approach to everything quite well. It comes down to what a country wants or commits to providing for it’s citizens. Usually taking a socialistic approach has worked well, however, I’ll be quick to point out that leaving it all up to a federal government far away in Washington is probably a mistake. Local healthcare is most likely best handled by local authorities. Some things work best when centralized some work best when distributed.
I would predict that sooner or later healthcare will become a basic right of American citizens, burt there’s a lot of dismantling to get through first. Corporations and people will have to change trajectories and give up some riches before it’s done. However, I will say that quite a few doctors I know support a single payer system. It means big changes in malpractice insurance, patient documentation, working with insurance companies, and working conditions in for medical professionals in general. For myself, I long for a time win doctors can write a prescription and you can go get it filled without writing 5 letters (and making two calls) to your current health insurance carrier.
Report this comment
I have kaiser insurance, I just went back to them after about a twenty year seperation. They are wonderful now. You are handles almost assembly line style until you see your Dr. He is required to spend a certain amount of time with each patient. You seldom wait for than 5 or 10 min for any diagnostic procedure, x rays, blood draws etc. They have a great system. Prescripts are handles in house. They have really streamlined the entire procedure.
Report this comment
Steve, your thoughts on professionals spending years educating and training themselves is a good example of integrity and good values. Risk, hard work and special talent deserve a reward. Slothful living practices deserve less, i.e. the fruits of the invested effort. It is not the role of government, to decide who gets what and when. When the government gets too big the individuals become too small, or meaningless. It does not take a scholar to grasp that truth.
Government is not a divine institution. It is people, who themselves are somewhere between incompetent and capable. In fact, government is far more skewed than society in general. At the top are a very few really wise people, and a great many political opportunists who are selfish and self serving. In the center contingent are middling performers, just doing what they are told and not particularly noteworthy.
The last and largest group is the substandard workers hired as a byproduct of maintaining ethnic balance, job preferences because they are of one group or another, or workers who know the government standards are less than the marketplace and seek government employment for the security of knowing few are ever terminated for poor performance – job security. The result of all of this is dysfunctional management and waste which characterizes government performance pretty much across the board. Anyone, I say anyone, who has had a responsible position working with government knows this to be true, as do some of the good government employees frustrated with trying to bring efficiency and common sense to the table. Therefore, it is moronic to believe socialism administered by government can be properly done. It is a fools folly.
The insurance analogy is another example of meaningless wordiness in attempt to find logic. A convoluted logic and a total confusion and misrepresentation of reality. Insurance is about providing a service, at a profit, and ensuring that profit by mitigating risk through numerical probabilities. It has nothing to do with human kindness or altruistic motives.
The issues facing America today are purely and simply self centered greed, ethical and moral deterioration and a weakened social and family fabric. Choosing people from that pool and expecting them to implement a working social model is oxymoronic.
This has already received far more attention than it merits.
Report this comment
Excellent points David, case in point ” Martin Luther King Hospital” in Los Angeles criminals with gun shot wounds would beg not to be taken their even when teir lives counted on mere minutes. It was set up as a social example and turned into a major disaster before they closed it after several attempts at puring management as well as staff.
Report this comment
Prentiss, I don’t worship Capitalism nearly so much as individualism. It is just that Capitalism maximizes ones personal choices. When Henri de Saint-Simon coined the phrase, socialism was meant to demean individualism. They said that individualism promoted a society based on competition. That is true to an extent, but in a Capitalist society, the individual can benefit from cooperation; such is the win-win situation. This is not socialism, as the participants are willing in their cooperation. In a truly socialist society, the choices are eventually made for you by the elites who have decided “what is best” for YOU! Coercion always comes to bear.
I believe that if you cause me no harm, you are free do to as you wish with your time, your funds, your property, your life. I make no dictates on you other than that the cost of such freedom is to respect the same freedom of others; a tiny cost in comparison.
In a classroom where half studies hard and does all of their homework, and half does no study or homework, in a Capitalist society, some will get A, B, C, D and yes, some will earn an F. In the socialist society, there will be no A’s, Just C’s. It may not start that way, but it always ends that way. The students soon learn that there is no point to study and homework, and they quit doing it. Mediocrity abounds, and eventually the collapse occurs.
A hungry dog hunts, a satiated dog lays on his ass on the porch… and rests.
Report this comment