A Debate over Socialism

I'm having a fascinating dialog with my politically conservative friend. It's providing me a great opportunity to really think about what I believe and why. Here is a recent note from her:

"I believe that socialism crushes the human spirit and that every step we make toward bigger government and more government control of our lives is a move toward socialism. What do I mean by “crushing the human spirit”? When people are personally responsible for their own lives and those of their family, they are highly motivated to work hard, to improve their lot in life. As more and more safety nets are created, there is a shift toward waiting to be rescued. As government becomes bigger, more and more taxes need to be collected resulting in less motivation for business owners to create wealth which will only be taken away. The higher the taxes, the more sluggish the economy resulting in less wealth for everyone, the poor are actually the hardest hit when the economy slows."

I realized that I needed to do a little research. What are the definitions of capitalism, socialism and communism? We need a common understanding of terms in order to communicate. So, I did my homework. Here is my response to my friend:

‘Socialism’ is a very broad category. By strict definition, socialism believes in equal access to resources, and that people are compensated according to their contributions. In other words, those who work more, have more. Those who work less, have less. (Communism is the political system where all things are held in common and people are compensated equally regardless of contribution.)

Where socialism differs from capitalism is in access. Capitalism emphasizes private access – you want the opportunity, you buy the opportunity; whereas socialism emphasizes public access – everyone has access to the opportunity. Neither system, in its pure form, removes incentive. Of course, there are many different ‘flavors’ of socialism and capitalism – some get very extreme. But each economic form has its pros and cons, and in our society we employ a blend of the two.

For example, health insurance – in any form - is socialism. It provides equal access to medical resources. To be anti-socialism with regard to health care, one would need to refuse to purchase health insurance and to buy medical services outright when needed. The downside to the capitalistic approach is that if you can’t buy it, you can’t have it.

Today, we employ a capitalistic-socialist approach – those on the ‘inside’ of health care practice socialism, and with a sense of entitlement. I don’t see those with health insurance limiting their use of health care to the amount of money they have actually contributed, which would be a capitalistic approach. By using health care regardless of the actual monies we have contributed, we acquiesce to what is considered to be a socialistic perspective. But those on the 'outside' of health care experience a capitalistic approach - they have to buy the opportunity, if they can. Which often, they can't.

Really, the discussion isn’t about socialism, it’s about where we feel comfortable on the spectrum. What do we want/need in health care? As caring Christians, what do we want/need for our neighbors? Is it OK for some to die while others live, based solely on ability to pay? For some to be sick while others are healed? Is it OK for us/our children/our parents to die while others live? For us to remain ill while others are cured? What do our past actions tell us about what we believe? How as a society do we get where we want to be?

I think we all need to be willing to look at a variety of methods to solve our current situation, which most agree is not acceptable. Personally, I don’t agree with all of our President’s opinions on health care. I hold a Republican opinion in that I think employers should quit providing health care benefits for their workers.

I hold a Democratic opinion in that I think a public option is a good idea. It’s pretty much identical to SAIF Corporation here in Oregon. A publicly held private corporation, not-for-profit, self-sustaining, that keeps worker’s compensation costs down in Oregon. Private insurers howl about SAIF, but I notice they continue to do business here. That means it IS profitable here, but they can’t gouge employers to pad their own pocketbooks. And that’s a good thing. Every employer is grateful for SAIF.

Fear is not a good foundation for sound decision-making. That’s what concerns me about both left and right wing politics these days. A political perspective that depends on whipping its constituents into such a frenzy of fear that they act rudely and rashly is not one that is good for America. I’m not picking on one side or another - we see this on both sides. But we must get beyond fear, beyond partisanship, beyond the desperate scraping for power that currently permeates our political landscape. We must listen to one another and work together.