“Socialism—doesn’t that mean less fun and more paperwork?” Let’s hope not.
When people talk about socialism, they can mean different things. Historically, socialism was defined in opposition to capitalism, and the idea that the two ideologies might be able to live in harmony, even symbiosis, took a while to emerge. And figuring out the exact aspects of capitalism that needed to be eliminated or modified was (and is) difficult. Some socialists have attempted to eliminate markets, for example, when (in my view) they might better have aimed to guarantee access to markets.
Socialists sometimes talk about eliminating capitalism, without mentioning that they will of course retain aspects of capitalism that seem indispensable—like money, credit or personal property. Although some versions of socialism may be “revolutionary” that doesn’t mean they start from scratch.
But how do we define socialism in 2016? Certainly a defining characteristic would be opposition to “billionaire capitalism,” an economic system that is everywhere linked to extreme inequality. Billionaire capitalism captures government as a matter of course, and we see this in Russia, China, the Persian Gulf and (partly) in the US. The alliance between Trump and Putin makes perfect sense—they both believe in a system where the economy and the government are run entirely for the benefit of billionaires. If billionaires occupy the place of honor, then the interests of the masses will necessarily be ignored, and things will go badly for them. Therefore, an essential function of the system is to distract the people from this reality. The people must be fed an endless diet of nationalistic and xenophobic propaganda—things are bad, yes, but it’s the fault of foreigners or minorities. So mass rage and scapegoating is a cornerstone of billionaire capitalism; it’s not a mere byproduct. The hatred directed at Hillary Clinton (and Obama, and Bill Clinton) is not a mysterious remnant of our racist and sexist past—it is part of a modern social and political movement, what I call billionaire capitalism. The hatred will not go away until billionaire capitalism itself is defeated.
If you live in a country where animosity toward immigrants is a noticeable feature of public discourse, then you may be living under billionaire capitalism. Because absent billionaire capitalism, dealing with immigrants is a fairly boring subject (except for the immigrants themselves, of course). No country can absorb an unlimited number of immigrants, but most countries would benefit from some immigration. Of course there are often humanitarian considerations, and cultural issues. But in general, immigration should be a fairly simple matter, not the kind of thing that tears societies in half.
But beyond the opposition to billionaire capitalism, what is our vision for the future? We must have a steady focus on the well-being and unity of our people. Socialism in 2016 is a commitment to science, particularly science that furthers the health and emotional well-being of the population; it’s a commitment to reducing inequality, to increasing individual productivity and wages through investment and education, among other means. It means universal healthcare and public health policies that keep lead out of our drinking water and poisons out of our food. It means strengthening democracy through electoral reform and furthering a sense of community, through education and legal sanctions for hate speech and divisive propaganda. Socialism means aggressive and effective action against climate change and other environmental problems. It means a progressive tax structure.
Socialism implies cultural changes. It’s a commitment to moving away from a culture of violent domination, rooted in slavery and the Indian wars, toward a culture of cooperation between equals. Socialism means a flattening of hierarchies, and making the hierarchies that do persist culturally dependent on a shared sense of responsibility. It means respect between men and women, and steady movement toward an organic relationship between the genders.
It means that children will be cared for, fed and educated and loved. They must get both the freedom and the structure they need to thrive. Children will always listen to adults who are willing to read and play with them, who will tell them stories and sing them songs. Adults who teach children to be violent or fearful will themselves be corrected under socialism—or any humane system.
Socialism will care for the mentally ill, and not leave them to self-medicate under bridges, sleeping outside in all weather. I don’t define social problems as “moral issues” very often—I don’t think it’s useful—but the treatment of mental illness in our society is inexcusable. And this is true of other public health issues as well. Much of our population suffers from diseases that seem to have no clear origin, or which have achieved a scale that defies explanation—for example the opioid epidemic. Why are so many of our people, particularly in rural areas, dying before their time? What a world of suffering there is in modern America. We need a collective effort, on the order of the Apollo program, to understand and treat these illnesses.
And our people, young and old, need adventure. They need to dance more and watch TV less. They need to hike deep into the wilderness and watch foxes play beside a lonely river. They need to have a sense of movement and light, of art and music. Young and old, they need to play sports more and watch sports less. They need to sing together and share their hopes with friends late into the night. They need to walk and speak as if the world were still young.
Socialism is a vivid awareness that we’re all in this together.
The Socialist Investor 
Really nice, except is it really TV and sports? That might have helped me, but people today? Three days ago, I stood on a train platform in New Jersey and I walked very close to a man to ask him directions. He had ear buds in and despite the fact I was practically in his personal space, he did not look up at me or acknowledge me. I began counting – 12 of us on that platform, every one looking at their device. Even I had a “phone” in my hand. No one talking to anyone present. TV and sports? Later in the weekend, trying to buy two cups of coffee at a slef serve kiosk at a Panera across the street from Princeton University, I was forced to wait while a passive parent yielded to her screaming banshee of a child who insisted he be able to do all of the on screen ordering. More fun would be okay, definitely more reading and play, but more discipline would be great and more outdoor play would fantastic as long as the reward for agreeing to go on a hike was not the newest version of “Final Fantasy XV.” To me, less screens everywhere increases the possibility of seeing a big herd of deer moving through the thick woods.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love so many things about this post. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
LikeLiked by 1 person