fearlesshistory

John McCain’s recent jab at the Obama campaign has reached deep into America’s past and dusted off the dreaded ‘S’ word - Socialism. In the immortal word of Dick Cheney; “So?”

Is Socialism really a bad word in America? Well, yes and no. You see, Socialism has been linked in Americna rhetoric to Communism to the point that average Americans can’t really explain the difference between the two. Socialism is further juxtaposed against Capitalism and America, another pairing which has become synonymous in the American lexicon. So it is time to let history set the record straight.

First off, America hasn’t been a pure Capitalist society since the 1890 Sherman Anti Trust Act (some argue it never really existed to begin with). The theory of Capitalism as set forth by Adam Smith’s 1776 treatise The Wealth of Nations holds that free market enterprise will foster competition, a lowering of prices, and innovation. True, it does. What it also does is lead to larger, more established corporate entities to consolidate their power and form monopolies or “trusts.” Trusts such as Standard Oil and US Steel which quashed innivation, worker’s rights, set prices in opposition to market forces, and allowed non-elected heads of industry such as J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller to exert more control over the American populace than the Predident and the Congress combined.

Since 1890, there has been a slow, systematic building of legal precedent that allows the government to regulate Capitalism. Though it remained largely unenforced, the Sherman Act set the stage for later regulations in the 1930’s following the collapse if the stock market. These advancements in policy led to the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Depositor’s Insurance Company, and other acts that checked the over-hungrey nature of Capitalism.

Communism, on the other hand, in its purest form positions itself as the opposition of Capitalism, but in reality it is the final stage of Capitalism, according to Karl Marx. The idea is that Capitalism would so exploit and control the lives of ordinary workers (the proletariat) that they would rise up, murder the money-hungry class which oppressed them (the bourgeoisie) . This would lead to a citizen-owned social structure where the people would control the means of production and reap the benefits of commerce, industry, and trade without distinction or discrimination based on race, gender, or ethnicity. Communism in practice, however, was an oligarchy which used the power of the government to take control and (in many cases) artificiallyprop up industries and institutions that were failing so that the people would continue to be employed (and the government would continue to be in power).

Socialism is the broad, broad grey area in between “pure” Capitalism and “pure” Communism.  Socialism is actually a socia contract between the state and its people wherein the government will interfere in order to prevent it’s citizens from being ravaged by hunger, illness, or the depradations of industrial and commerical entities. Socialism has a long and proud history in the United States, including Herbert Hoover’s ill-advised attempt to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression by providing the livestock of farmers free feed bought by the government. This theory was taken a step further during the Great Depression to include food lines, Social Security, and the WPA - which built many of the parks, highways, and infrastructure we now use. Socialism continued in the 1960’s with Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty; Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing for low-income people, Head Start, and other programs expanded to meet the needs of the populace.

In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan considered decreasing the Social Security benefits in order to rescue the ailing Socialist system. Originally, in 1964 Reagan had denigrated the program stating that if he became President, he would do away with it. By 1980, he had mellowed a bit, it seems. Either that or he realized that a Socialist program like Social Security had become (as Tip O’Neill put it) “The Third Rail of American Politics.” Testing the waters, Reagan got a House Republican named  Schweiker sponsor a bill to cut Social Security. A retiring worker would have his monthly benefits cut from $248 a month to $164 a month and save the government around $80 billion a year. The overwhelming flood of angry calls and letters caused Reagan to back down and cost Schweiker dearly. Reagan later did pass a measure (proposed by Alan Greenspan) to tax 50% of the earnings of people receiving Social Security in order to rescue the fund. It seemed Americans were not all that keen to get rid of Socialism after all.

Does Obama’s plan “spread the wealth” as it has been so promulgated by his opponents. Well, kinda. Social programs would receive a boost and people and individuals making over $250,000 a year would have their taxes raised…by 3%. In the mean time, the government of an Obama administration would (theoretically) invest in alternative energy solutions to decrease dependence on oil, create jobs, etc.

Is McCain opposed to taxes? Yes, it seems he is. Is McCain opposed to Socialism? No, it seems he isn’t.

As a matter of record, though, it should be noted that the Bush Administration used over $700 billion in your tax money to prop up failing businesses (Wall St.) and industries (Ford, GM, Chrysler) in order to prevent job losses in the American economy. SecretaryPaulson purchasedAIG almost outright and has been forced to concede that it is necessary to purchase controlling stock inbanks to prevent their collapse.

Where have I heard that before?

LINKS:

http://hnn.us/articles/10522.htm l - “When Did Social Security Become American Politics’ Third Rail” by Rick Shenkman

http://www.ssa.gov/hist1983amend2.htmory/l - Text of the Amendment taxing Social Security, 1983.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reaganstmts.html#1983 - Ronald Reagan’s comments on the taxing of Social Security benefits

Trackback URI | Comments RSS