It has always amazed me that one kind of discourse that is completely filtered out in media, in schools, in popular culture, in politics, is a discourse about socialism (never mind communism). Yet I am also amazed that we seem to be on the verge of such a discussion because of the powerful steps taken, first by Great Britain, then by other countries in the EU and finally by us (that is, the US). In effect, the Treasury department has not only injected liquidity (i.e., money) into the banks, but also has bought shares or their equivalent in these institutions. That means in effect that we, i.e., we citizens, not only have an equity stake here but also partial ownership. In effect, along with the rest of the world, we have partially nationalized the banks. Who would have thought that an administration so committed to complete deregulation as this one would arrive at this point.
What I'd really like to see is a serious discussion on CNN or one of the major networks about the advantages and disadvantages of socializing the economy. We have a golden opportunity to do so here, although I'm afraid that the main stream media would be frightened at the prospect of such a discussion. But, hey, if GW Bush can go down this path, what is there to fear? (As in, "all we have to fear is fear itself"). Do you feel this same way? Realizing that the word "socialism" scares a lot of people, nonetheless wouldn't you find it interesting to hear from people who are sympathetic to socialism and those opposed argue out the pros and cons?
7 comments:
I think one reason that the socialism discussion hasn't happened is the stigma that is associated with it. We as a nation have based our entire history on the basis of democracy, and along with this notion comes capitalism. Socialism as an economic system is associated with Communism, the antithesis to the United States and it's well being. It is a subject that many die hard Americans are unwilling to discuss for fear of turning into the type of government system we have inherently been taught to hate since birth. Maybe if it were slowly introduced , or introduced on a major talk show such as CNN or even more mainstream like Oprah, it would have more of a chance.
I definitely think CNN and other newscasting agencies should discuss socialism in the government system in more depth. I also agree with Brittny's comment--the idea of socialism definitely has a negative connotation due to the Cold War and it obviously doesn't work in the extreme. However this financial crisis also shows us that Capitalism at its extreme fails to a certain degree as well. Maybe it's time for people to break down the barriers between these two completely different systems and see if there's a way to incorporate the best of both worlds to form a more functional society.
I think the conversation about socialism is already going on. People are split evenly on the Bailout, and that essentially represents their feelings on socialism. I certainly think many people are happy with the potential of getting a stake in hugely profitable banks for the years ahead. This will only augment whatever income and tax cuts they may receive. Either way, along with nationalizing health care, I think many people are comfortable with the ideas certain aspects of socialism represent. In the end, labels will not matter as much as substance. In the era of "fear of socialism" capitalism was just perceived to be the better system in all these aspects. After 100 years of data, it seems the people, along with societies across the world, are embracing aspects of both. I think bringing the word into the conversation only serves as a distraction, in the same purpose as it seems to have been unleashed by the McCain campaign. As our country has grown bigger, so have our experiences with many people from all walks of life. It seems America's obsession with self-interest seems to be fading in light of the ever-increasing inequality in wealth between classes. The bottom 90% of the people seem to be dictating a change towards embracing socialist values that do indeed "spread the wealth," and make sure the general public achieves a necessary minimum standard of living at a small cost to the elite upper class.
I think that the socialism needs to be defined before people can start to talk about it. Many Americans, including myself, do not fully understand how socialism works. When I think of socialism, the general idea that comes to mind is of no one being wealthy and everything being equal. And, for me, why try to get a high paying job then? I know that socialism is not that cut and dry but unless people know it isn't like that then they will not being willing to discuss it. If a news source did a special on it, they would have to show it in action like in England in order to associate socialism with an ally of ours.
These are really great comments and they stimulate in me a desire to respond. Brittny and thepuj I think are completely correct that socialism is conflated with communism and has been a taboo topic since before the
Russian revolution. We have had at least two "red scares" (1919-21, 1950-54) where people who were critical of government policies, union leaders, community organizers, and others who were members of suspect groups were hounded, lost their jobs, deported from the country because of it. the idea that CNN might have a serious discussion of socialism is an intriguing idea; let's all send emails to CNN (or maybe Anderson Cooper) suggesting it! I think Boris hits the nail on the head when he says "Either way, along with nationalizing health care, I think many people are comfortable with the ideas certain aspects of socialism represent. In the end, labels will not matter as much as substance. In the era of 'fear of socialism' capitalism was just perceived to be the better system in all these aspects. After 100 years of data, it seems the people, along with societies across the world, are embracing aspects of both." I would add that socialism came into the 20th century as a creature of authoritarian dictatorship so it's difficult for people to disentange socioeconomic arrangements from tyranny. But as we are aware, elements of socialism in democratic societies have been present in Europe and Scandanavia for a half-century or more.
Finally, Katie gets down to it when she wonders about the motivation for action in a system which is economically more egalitarian. Why try for a high paying job if in fact the economic gains are smaller? Well, I think that's probably a key point. It's hard for people to imagine what the motivation for all kinds of economic activity, like entrepeneurial risk-taking there would be in a socialist system.
I'd add one thing more. We are a country founded by people fleeing from powerful governments who took advantage and oppressed people for reasons ranging from speaking out against the government to having the wrong religion. Our history is suffused with fears of powerful government and a concomitant aversion to taxation, except in times of serious crisis, the Great Depression being the best recent example. Well, there are many questions here; maybe this is something we should talk over in class.
I would absolutely like to hear a pro/con discussion of socialism on a major news station, but such a openly public discussion will never be heard. I agree with Boris that discussions involving the benefits of socialism are already taking in place in this country, but they are certainly not given attention on a major scale. Yes, some tenets of socialist inspired capitalism are attractive given the current state of our economy, healthcare system and overall welfare, but the positive aspects of socialism will never be injected into public discourse by media outlets for fear that those seeds of change would grow into something that would drastically alter the status quo. Americans have been socialized with a view of socialism (and communism) that deems its practice as inefficient and un-American. For the media to merely discuss socialism's potential benefits would not just confuse Americans socialized to adopt a certain viewpoint, but would hurt the interests of the media institutions conveying them.
From what it seems, the media can discuss socialism, as long as the term, "socialism" isn't used. Many Americans, including many in our class, do not know how socialism operates and simply know that it represents all that America is not based on the ideals that they have been indoctrinated and socialized with. As occurred during media discussions of the bailouts, the pros and cons of socialist tenets can be discussed by the media as long as the term itself is omitted. Since many people could not differentiate a socialist concept from a capitalist one, the media was able to discuss a glaringly socialist action like the public infusing of $700 billion dollars into the economy and view it as a normal liberal capitalist action.
Post a Comment