66.3 F
The Villages
Thursday, March 28, 2024

A healthier society

Jack E. Brush
Jack E. Brush

Words always carry an emotional tone. When I was a sophomore in high school, the word “senior” had an almost magical ring to it. To be a senior in high school meant to be at the top of the ladder; there was a certain prestige about completing the final year and preparing for graduation. When I became a senior citizen, the word no longer seemed magical. So it is with words. They have an emotional tone that changes from one context to another. I have often been amused by the fact that the words “senator” and “senile” come from the same Latin root, but the context in which we use them is usually not the same–usually! The words “social” and “society” are also of Latin origin and usually carry a positive emotional tone. The Village in which I live has a social club, and we consider such organizations to have a positive influence on our society. But add an “ism” to the word “social”, and the result sounds un-American to large segments of our population. Perhaps to everyone’s surprise, we now have a candidate for the Presidency of the United States who not only adds this “ism” to “social”; he also adds an “ist” and describes himself as such: a socialist or a democratic socialist. Since this designation is often understood as synonymous with “communist”, let me assert at the outset that both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels rejected the democratic socialism of their day.

The mention of Marx and Engels brings us, I think, to the crux of the matter. For whatever reasons, the word “socialism” has acquired the same emotional tone as “communism”. As soon as we hear the word, we have visions of governmental control over all means of production, of the dissolution of private property, of the total equality of income–in short, visions of the Communist Manifesto of 1847 becoming a blueprint for our society. In view of the fact that Bernie Sanders describes himself as a socialist, it behooves us to inquire about the real meaning of the word so that we can fairly evaluate his political views. First of all, it is important to recognize that Marx and Engels did not invent socialism. Karl Marx was born in 1818, and socialism was already developing in England as early as 1800. Although the intellectual roots of socialism can be traced back to the French Revolution of 1789, socialism as a movement was a direct reaction to the inhumane consequences of the Industrial Revolution including child labor, unsafe work conditions and low pay. The English word “socialism” occurred for the first time in 1827 as a designation for the political and economic ideas of Robert Owen. At his New Lanark cotton mills in Scotland, Owen improved the housing of his employees, opened a store for them that sold products slightly above cost and started a school for the children. When the embargo against the United States was imposed during the War of 1812, he continued paying his workers for four months while the mills were closed, and in 1813 he published two articles expounding his vision of a new society. Since all of this occurred before the beginning of communism, we would do well to set aside today the notion of communism and to consider the views of the people who call themselves socialists.

In general, the socialists have held three fundamental ideas about politics and economics. Firstly, they have criticized the present structure of society and charged that it is in many ways unjust. One need only recall the novels of Charles Dickens with their critique of the Industrial Revolution in order to understand the background of the socialist movement in England. To be sure, the Industrial Revolution brought many benefits to modern society, but it also caused the suffering of many people, particularly the factory workers. It was against the inhumane working conditions and the poverty level incomes that the socialists reacted most strenuously.

Secondly, the socialists were convinced that a more just form of society is possible, and they tended to define “just” as “equal”. At this point, it becomes clear that the socialist philosophy was partially rooted in the American and the French Revolutions. After all, egalitarianism was fundamental to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”, and it was also expressed in the motto of the French Revolution: “liberté, égalité, fraternité”. The question for the socialists was always this: equal in what respect? Equality of rights? Equality before the law? Equality of income? The equality of rights and the equality before the law were generally accepted by all socialists, but the equality of income gave rise to considerable disagreement. It was Plato who said in essence: To distribute equal portions to unequal individuals is no longer equal (from Plato’s “Laws”). So does “equality of income” mean monetarily equal or equal according to effort or equal according to needs? Socialists have disagreed on the matter. Therefore, it is important to clarify the views of a particular candidate who calls himself a socialist.

Thirdly, socialists of all persuasions agree that some form of transformation in society is necessary in order to promote justice. They differ, however, on the nature of such a transformation. The replacement of one government by another is a transformation of the most radical type. However, milder transformations are possible through the established political processes in a society. Once again, the specific plans of a given reformer need to be evaluated. Furthermore, the degree of transformation must be considered. It seems to me undeniable that an educated public is necessary for a well-functioning democracy and that it is, therefore, in the national interest to support and promote the education of all economic groups. If a transformation is necessary in order to accomplish this goal, there are numerous questions to be answered. Should we reduce the interest rate on student loans? Should we follow the example of many European countries and consider education to be a civil right? Since all socialists will not agree on these issues, serious debate is essential.

Admittedly, the three points that I have outlined are very general: the critique of society, the striving toward justice and equality, and the need for transformations. Nevertheless, they provide an interesting contrast to the opposing view that promotes a radical individualism, ignores the suffering of fellow citizens and works to maintain the status quo. I think that the greatest danger facing our nation today is the radical individualism that is totally unconcerned about the common good. Personally, I have always been impressed with Plato’s image of society as a living organism. If one part suffers, it affects the whole. If being concerned about the whole of society, if striving for the common good places me in the socialist camp, then I am–at least in this respect–a socialist. Still, the welfare of society always stands in tension with the welfare of the individual. I don’t think that the most radically libertarian individualist totally disregards the welfare of society. Conversely, I don’t think that any socialist is concerned about the welfare of society to the exclusion of his or her individual well-being. What we need is a balance between individual interests and the common good. So my suggestion is this: Temper the radical individualism of American culture with a generous portion of socialism. The society will be healthier.

P.S. If you are a new Florida resident, don’t forget to register so that you can vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Villager Jack Brush is a frequent contributor to Villages-News.com

Our amenities are being used by families with kids

In a Letter to the Editor, a Village of Citrus Grove resident says she is not happy about families with kids using amenities paid for by residents.

Finally allocating funds to the golf courses!

A Village of Hadley resident said he is happy that more money is being allocated to the golf courses. Read his Letter to the Editor.

Trump is unfit for any office

A Village of Osceola Hills resident, in a Letter to the Editor, details why he thinks former President Trump is unfit to hold any office.

I don’t think the original Developer saw this coming

A resident of the Village of St. Charles offers his thoughts on deed compliance and the original Developer of The Villages.

Proudly fly the flag in honor of my father’s Navy service

A Village of St. Johns resident, in a Letter to the Editor, says she proudly displays the U.S. Navy flag in honor of her father.