Did I hear a Nanny, Nanny, Boo, Boo at the end of Harold Meyerson’s article in The Washington Post? I think I did. His final note in the article “It’s Not about Socialism, its About Rescuing Capitalism” was a little accusatory; like a parent saying, you got yourself into this mess, now get yourself out. I did not take his tone personally though; I understand that as one of two democratic socialists among so many republican capitalists on the hill Meyerson is just expelling a little frustration. Our government is what we have made it since we elect those that make up our governmental leaders and we do so knowing what they believe in and stand for. Meyerson is wagging his finger at all of us, not just his counterparts on capital hill. In the past we have not seen capitalism as an economic trickle down effect with an unequal distribution of wealth. I believe we have all seen capitalism as our ticket to the American Dream with free enterprise and supply and demand regulating itself. This does not seem to be the case in my life time and I see the author trying to make the point that the capitalist system of our country in present time is not laissez-faire (pure); it has been tainted by the conservatives. The trickle down has stopped at the executive level and the government has had to consistently force this form of capitalism by providing ‘guidelines’ for minimum wage, bonuses, work related expenses, and other areas where the economy stalls before it distributes capital among workers.
If capitalism is in support of a free market with no governmental intervention; than, it has and is failing. If the conservatives fighting for capitalism are just holding back reforms that may resemble socialism in the name of capitalism; then, they are just holding back reforms that may be beneficial to the citizens of the United States. I see President Obama’s reforms as Mr. Meyerson does; he is not socializing our economy, but attempting to invigorate it through stimulating the private market. This is a capitalist move in my view; maybe not the right move. But it is still capitalism, to an extent, since a true capitalist would just leave the economy to itself. I am not sure there is a true socialist government any more than there is a true capitalist government. I had the pleasure of living in Germany for some time in elementary school and even their form of socialism was scattered; for example, they provided higher education for all citizens, but the government determined if you went to University or Gymnasium (technical school). There appeared to be a capitalist government in the days we are studying in the Western world, but I don’t think that was laissez-faire either.
I do not believe Mr. Meyerson is attempting to convert his readers to socialism, yet give them a true understanding of its meaning. If the media and citizens of our country are going to accuse the President and other citizens of being socialists; Meyerson would like them to have the correct definition. Socialists believe that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. I think their point has been made in the past few years. Socialists advocate the creation of a society where wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production. This is not to say that a brick layer works harder than a doctor so he should make more money, but rather the brick layers trade is a necessary commodity as is the doctors and her wages should reflect that.
I know Meyerson is speaking out of frustration, as we all are, but he is one of the lucky ones who write for a fairly liberal newspaper that will allow him to state his beliefs for the entire world to consider. That is one of the perks of capitalism; we have numerous newspapers to choose from. If we were a completely socialist society would socialists like Ted Turner be so wealthy or would Mr. Meyerson have written this article, or would their talents be provided by the state instead of free enterprise?
