Of Political Parties and Government
05/18/2008
Paul MunnisIt comes as no surprise that the two world’s most populated nations are Socialist nations. We refer to China (1.3 billion people) and India (1.15 billion people).
Here is how the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines “Socialism:”
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2 b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
China tends to pure Socialism while India has discovered that Socialism is inefficient (they’ve been there) and says that Capitalism is needed to lift people up out of poverty. But they want Capitalism embedded in a class based society.
By contrast Capitalism calls for just about the opposite of the Socialist definitions. Here is the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for “Capitalism:”
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
When we look at the U.S. we are neither pure Capitalist nor are we pure Socialist. We are a hybrid nation invented as a consequence in part of the U.S. Bill of Rights and Constitution and shaped by “The New Deal.”
We believe the nation and all that is in it belongs to the people. We believe that granting use of national assets to private or corporate management provides for administrative efficiency. So for example the TV airwaves belong to the people, the government administers our interests through the FCC, and licenses corporations to operate radio and TV stations for profit and in the public interest. If a company breaks faith with our social contract they lose their license.
The New Deal can be boiled down to a simple lecture given to the Barons of American industry during the Great Depression where people were starving, where there was no work, and where the whole world was in the same boat.: “Look at Europe, look at the rise of Socialism and Communism. Look at the riots, look at the killing, look at the resulting government. If you industrialists do not change your ways the same will happen in America.” Man those industrial barons did look hard, they did “get it,” and they supported the New Deal lock stock and barrel.
What was the New Deal? It was a determination to create a middle class so that class warfare would be un-necessary. Simply put we looked at revolution and its causes and we said: “Let’s avoid it.”
We know what has happened to the middle class under Bush and we can see what such an approach to government has done to other nations. It has lead to Fascism which is what the real reason was behind that part of WWII in Europe.
Here is how Merrian-Webster defines “Fascism:”
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Many American writers have complained that the neo-con ideology and the Bush Administration has been steering America towards a Fascist State and others have observed the decline and fall of the middle class in America under the GOP.
This flirtation with Recession that we are having is fermenting a lot of queries into just what must be done with America after Bush. GOP people tend to say “take the resources away from the people, privatize everything and let Capitalism have free rein.” Democrats respond “that leads to Fascism.” Moderates say “we need to return to the New Deal.”
Debate about this is likely to happen after June 3rd when the Democratic nominee is chosen and the two Party’s campaign to pick a new President of the United States. All of us have skin in this discussion. But the discussion must not stop there. This is a Congressional election year and we need to ask each candidate where they stand and assure that they represent how we feel, and how YOU feel. We do want a representative government.
For my part I am a Moderate, a Centrist too, but with strong Liberal tendencies, and I want a return to the New Deal way of governing because it marks the most successful period in American and world history. Why change if it ain’t broken?
I am concerned that in the heat of other debates relating to foreign policy, the rebuilding of our military, and issues of economics, that this subject will be given little coverage. Thus it falls on us whenever we attend a political event to smoke out the candidate on the question of where they stand on this matter. We have just gone through eight years of a Party that swore to uphold our Constitution and then lowered their hand and worked to subvert it at every opportunity. We must not let that happen again. Our liberties are too precious to us to let them be glossed over.