Does the world socialism even have a denotation anymore? It seems to me that the word no longer carries a meaning aside from its utility in ad hominum attacks. The word is hurled around a lot nowadays, often in seemingly oxymoronic statements, such as: ‘Obama is a socialist Nazi’. Although such a statement is utter nonsense for anyone with any knowledge of history, its usage in the contemporary political setting does provide some insight to the role of the public/social sector of the United States since the 1940’s.
National Socialism (often with reference to Nazism) refers to a political/economic policy opposed to capitalism, communism, and liberalism, elements all inherent in United State’s policies in the last 7 decades. The United States does not share with this ideology the belief in racial struggle/hyper-nationalism. It is obvious that United States is anti-communism, but many still consider the US as the epitome of capitalism, a fact I would strongly contend. The social sector is a huge part of our economy, our cutting-edge technological advancements, and the rise of our country as a global hegemony.
Similar to Hitler’s Germany, the United States has always supported and fostered the growth and well-being of corporations. It has done this in a variety of ways, including subsidies, tariffs, federal investment (via the Pentagon), ensuring access to over-seas markets ( often through military intervention), and most recently with the billion dollar bail-outs. This, American-styled, corporatism has for the most part been non-partisan. Although I find it an impediment to democracy, I nonetheless, see its contributions to our dominant economy. Just about every American President has helped maintain this system, often with little significant opposition.
Despite it’s ’socialist’ elements, this system has yet to spawn accusations that our presidents have been ’social’. That is, until Presidents such as FDR and Obama proposed policies in which the public sector would deliver benefits to all its citizens, not just corporate entities or those in the top 5% of our economic hierarchy. Likewise, rather than investing in the corporate entities themselves, which are governed by an oligarchy of privileged corporate bureaucrats, public finances would go to the individuals whose collective work allows these corporate entities to function. The public sector has done great things for the United States, creating efficient highways systems, sent men to the moon, and defeated tyrannical regimes. Unfortunately, since the 1980’s, it has fallen drastically behind in keeping up with the national infrastructure, and most importantly keeping up its human capital ( the other 95% of the American citizenry).
Just as many of our roads are falling apart, so to is the quality of life for the working-class, whose access to decent health care and economic security is severely limited. The same class of people who led the nation to industrial superiority, have yet to share in the prosperity of our rich nation. It is true that our per capita incomes have risen substantially through American corporatism, but that rise is nowhere near the same rate of the privileged corporate minority. Furthermore, the real incomes of the working majority have fallen and along with their quality of life. It is about time that the public sector start investing in the majority of Americans.
I fail to see how people in the 95% income bracket cannot support public healthcare. What is so disturbing about knowing that your neighbor or the poor guy down the street will have better access to healthcare. Such benefit would make them more productive, enable them to better contribute to our economy, and less likely to spread a disease to you. For many, this will not affect your taxes substantially. For those who face rising taxes, deal with it. Seldom do people complain about the government using the taxpayer’s money to develop a new missile ( a missile likely used in conflict the American citizenry had nothing to do with). Even the corporation will benefit from a healthier labor market. What is there to be against???
