Many like socialism more than they will admit

To the editor:

This is in response to a recent article in the HCP about socialism in the United States.

To his credit, in his article “Socialism in the United States already exists,” Gary Lewis at least acknowledged some of the nuances of socialist policy.

Enough that it should help people to recognize that some amount of socialism is necessary for any functioning society.

For many people, the meaning of the word is unclear at best. You say “socialism,” but what they hear is “communism.”

Communism is a system where the government owns both the means of production, the factory and the workers if you will, and all goods produced. It operates independently of actual market conditions. That is not socialism.

In the broadest sense, socialism is large segments of people coming together to do collectively what would be impossible to do individually. Examples of this are national security, public roads, bridges etc.

In a narrower sense it is people making a collective decision to do things for the betterment of society as a whole, things that, while not impossible to do as individuals, would be impractical, costly or inefficient. Examples of this are public schools, police and fire protection.

While everyone may not agree that the cost they pay is commensurate to the value they receive, no one questions the wisdom of pooling resources (taxes) to pay for these services because everyone recognizes that they are necessary.

Additionally, most people recognize that progressive taxation is the most practical and cost effective method of paying for them.

Those are easy, “no brainer” government functions, but they are nonetheless rooted in socialistic principles. The controversy arises as you gradually move toward those things that benefit society as a whole but are within reach for individuals of average means. Examples are things like healthcare and subsistence level incomes.

Most people would agree that society has a vested interest in maintaining a minimum level of food and income security for our population, particularly the elderly, disabled and impoverished.

Without it, civilized behavior breaks down, crime and disease go up and we end up paying more in the end in the form of higher healthcare and incarceration costs than we otherwise would have had we addressed the need up front. All of the preaching in the world about personal responsibility does not change that basic fact.

The social challenges we face are not because we are moving too far toward socialism, they are because we have not learned to separate our ideological aspirations from our real world limitations. And this happens on both ends of the spectrum.

There are some that think that individual initiative and personal responsibility are the panacea for everything, without regard for the circumstances, historical or familial, that have placed people in particular stations of life. They see no reason to account for differences between children born to drug addicted single mothers and ones born with a silver spoon in their mouth. To point out the differences is to invite accusations of envy or class warfare.

On the other hand, there is a segment of society that view any benefit they can receive not as part of a larger social contract, but as a means to dodge responsibility for their own lives.

These people may be a small minority of the population, but they are highly visible and an easy target for those who rightfully resent their tax dollars being spent to support someone who is capable of work but unwilling. For lack of a better word, I’ll call them bums. Bums make it more difficult for those of us a little further left on the political spectrum to make the greater good argument while those on the right are pointing to the bums as examples of our folly.

Resentment of the bums runs so deep in some people that it renders them deaf, dumb and blind to the perfectly logical arguments that can be made in favor of more, not fewer, socialistic policies.

For example, when you allocate more tax dollars to pre-natal healthcare for pregnant women, parenting classes, early childhood education, improved public education and free post secondary education, do you know what you get? Fewer bums! You also have more tax revenue from better educated citizens, lower spending on welfare and prison construction, and an improved quality of life for everyone.

There can be no better example of the logical application of a socialist principal though than healthcare. There is no question that the most cost effective method of delivering healthcare is through a single-payer, socialized system. The facts are irrefutable.

Every modern country in the world, with the exception of the United States, has adopted some form of socialized medicine for all of their citizens, not just those over 65. The results have been known for decades. While the US spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare, and leaves millions uninsured, other countries manage full coverage at a cost averaging less than 8% of GDP, and with better outcomes.

That alone is reason enough to adopt the policy, but when you factor in the reductions in personal bankruptcies and the resulting financial stress on families, frequently enough to destroy a marriage, the logic becomes crystal clear.

When people use the term as a pejorative to call someone a socialist, it reveals a lack of understanding because all they are really saying is that their idea of the correct amount of socialism is something different, but only by a matter of degrees. There may be a wide range on the socialism scale between fanatical libertarians and bleeding heart liberals, but everyone is somewhere on that scale.

The funny thing is, when you put the labels aside and start drilling down on the individual issues, most people are a lot more agreeable to socialism than they want to admit.

Sincerely, 
Brad Adams
Riverside, Calif.