The Scaffold of American Pillars: Economy, Politics, Ideology
The Scaffold of American Pillars: Economy, Politics,
Ideology
Considerable effort is being spent lately in conversation
about “this or that” country being Socialist or Communist and how that should
drive American policy toward it. Equally compelling, the result of such a
discussion can inform arguments about whether America is, in fact, Socialist.
If America is “already Socialist,” arguments often follow, then those who declare
otherwise (that America is “Capitalist”) fail in their intellectual consistency
when arguing against adopting additional “Socialist” programs. Clearly, such labels take on partisan
rhetorical power as justifications for domestic and international policy. Definitions
matter and, just like all language, have evolved within the context of a post-Cold
War world.
Consider this analysis with three “pillars” as a scaffold:
1. Economic—On a macro scale, how are the scarce resources
within an economy owned, managed, and distributed.
2. Political—On a state (national) level, how much control
does the citizenry have over those who make decisions about how to manage the
economy.
3. Ideological—To what extent do pillars 1 and 2 drive an unrelenting
ideology that requires neighbors—otherwise sovereign—to comply with similar economic
and political systems.
For Americans of my generation (who grew up during the Cold
War), there was little need (or room) for this nuanced, three-pillared
approach. For descendants of the Cold War, the three pillars were combined into
bright, rhetorically charged lines between “good” and “evil.”
The winners get to write the history, after all, and we can
all agree that the (evil) Soviet Union no longer exists.
Cold Warriors needed only to look at how a singularized (three
pillars collapsed into one) Communism
destroyed (for examples) Vietnam, Korea, Poland, Germany and the Soviet Union. After America (the West) won the Cold War, we
should have been freed to take a more objective look at how and why Communism
failed, but we haven’t done that mental work. We have been contented to
maintain our single-pillared resistance to Communism, but we have, in our
mental laziness, deprived ourselves of a cogent argument that we can apply to
our contemporary discourse. Further, because we have been derelict in assessing
the three-pillared analysis, we are left without an intellectual ground to
defend when the generation-that-follows re-casts history in the terms of the
present, without regard for a history that they did not live through. We are compelled,
if we are to protect the future from the mistakes of the past, to be more
precise in how we define Socialism, Capitalism, and Communism. Follows is a
contemporary, three-pillared analysis that may inform our discussions.
Capitalism: a pure economic (pillar 1) structure driven by
the “invisible hand” of comparative advantage and trade to allocate scarce
resources among individuals. It is the natural way that individuals, in the
absence of government interference, would conduct trade. It is most compatible (pillar
2) with pure democracy, an ideological (pillar 3) purism that exists on a
sliding scale. Democracy has no ideological mandate to spread throughout the
world, but rather it is the default manner of political interaction among free,
equal citizens. Pragmatically, other nations that believe democracy to be the
default ideal are easier to trade with because they also share similar values
regarding human rights and “fair” resource allocation. No state in the world is
purely “Capitalist.” Capitalism is an ideological purism on one side of a
sliding scale between “pure free trade” and “pure command.” Although the U.S.
is not a pure Capitalist market and it is not a pure democratic political
state, it is the closest to this pure combination in the world—and asserts
itself as such, even as it sometimes acts—hypocritically—elsewise.
Communism: a pure economic structure (pillar 1) combined
with a pure political structure (pillar 2) combined with a pure ideological
structure (pillar 3). Economically, the means of production—resource ownership,
management, and distribution—are controlled by the state. Politically, it is
authoritarian/totalitarian with single party rule. Ideologically, it is charged
with spreading this political-economic structure around the world, by violence
and revolution if necessary. The Soviet Union is the best (worst) historical example
of this. China and Cuba are modern examples of how it can “kinda” work. North
Korea and Venezuela are examples of how it definitely doesn’t work.
Because of the third pillar (ideological expansion), Communism
comes in conflict with other nations (and other nations’ allies) that are
resistant to the second pillar (authoritarianism/totalitarianism). The conflict
is often costly and complicates the first pillar (economic command). Thus, the
first pillar fails. We saw this in the Cold War and are seeing it more recently
in Venezuela. Thus, to be clear, it’s not solely the economic system (pillar 1)
failing on its own (although, it eventually would), it’s the economic system
(pillar 1) failing because of its political (pillar 2) and ideological (pillar
3) failings.
Socialism: By its very nature, it is a “mixed” economic,
political, and ideological system. Economically (pillar 1), it’s similar to
communism: the means of production, management, and distribution of scarce
resources (including labor) are controlled by the government. In a sense,
every modern nation has some degree of this (remember the sliding scale
discussed regarding Capitalism above). Having an army, for instance, to protect
a nation is, in theory, a socialist (what we might better call “socialized”)
product: a government confiscates some resources from each citizen in taxes and
pools all those resources into a single budget and distributes it for all
citizens’ mutual protection. Public K-12 education and a state university
system are also examples, as are fire departments and Social Security and
welfare and highway systems. In some nations this also means healthcare and all
higher education. From an economic perspective, such control leads to economic
inefficiencies (because of the inherent lack of comparative-advantage-based
trade in distribution, combined with the outflow of capital from the ownership
and management of “natural” resources’ allocations). The grander the scale, the
greater the risk of inefficiency: a cost that Socialists are willing to absorb (and
those who prefer freer markets may effectively argue against) because such
costs are also borne by the entire nation.
Politically (pillar 2), Socialism is often combined with
some form of democracy (direct or indirect) and, in modern times, a belief in
human rights (pillar 3) that may be
protected by some form of constitution.
Socialism, in its “mixed-ness” does not tend toward an
expansionist ideology (except in those cases where it is actually Communism
trying to mask itself as something less than what it is (like modern Cuba or
modern Venezuela)), but does favor trade with like-situated partners because it
is easier. In its mixed-ness along the sliding scale between “pure Capitalism”
(which doesn’t exist except as a pole on an imaginary line) and “pure
Communism” (which also doesn’t exist except as a pole described above), the
United States favors less government command of resources than most other
nations (especially Western European examples). America is the most Capitalist
of all the mixed-Socialist nations. America speaks the language—advances the
rhetoric—of “Capitalism” even as it picks and chooses its Socialist traits.
Socialism, then, is the default for most successful modern
nations including the United States. To be clear, though, in the United States
we are driven by pillars two (political) and three (ideological). In this, I
mean that the Constitution does not guarantee
economic rights, but rather guarantees political and human rights. In
Communism and in the roots of Western European Socialism, pillars 2 and 1 are more
indistinguishable than in the US.
In other words, in the forms of Socialism practiced in much
of the rest of the world, the implicit assumption is that political rights
(pillar 2) are defined in economic (pillar 1) terms. In the United States,
economic rights (pillar 1) are protected by—ancillary to—political rights
(pillar 2). This is why ideological purists (like American political
conservatives) resist movements further away from free-trade and Capitalist
markets; such movements are interpreted as infringements upon the
political-Constitutional definition of political equality and opportunity. In
this context, the creation of rights which are based on economic “equality”
runs contrary to the human right of equality-in-opportunity discussed in America’s
founding documents.
In summation, America is the most Capitalist, most
democratic nation in the world. It is, in pure terms, neither: America is a
Republic with a mixed (Socialist) economy. It is also driven by pillar
2—political rights—that are meant to protect pillar 1—economic rights— which
makes the mixed-ness of America’s political-economic system different from
those of Western Europe’s type of Socialism (where pillar 1 drives pillar 2)
and very clearly different from Communism (which is MOST different in pillar
3). In final conclusion, the biggest threat to the “American way of life” is
not in its level of deviation from capitalism (pillar 1), but in fundamental
deviations from the principles of constitutional, democratic rule (pillar 2)
and democratic principles’ protection around the world (pillar 3).
With this three-pillared approach, Americans—no longer
content to fall into the lazy tropes of “good” versus “evil” that may have been
sufficiently compelling in a bygone era—may:
1.
Admit that the United States has
Socialist traits (in its economic mixed-ness) while also asserting that it highly
values freer trade (pillar 1).
2.
Assert that the United States is
more closely aligned to Capitalism as an economic system for owning, managing,
and distributing resources as a manifestation (not source) of representative
democracy (pillar 2).
3.
Maintain that the United States’
mixed-ness in pillars 1 and 2 is enforced and made intellectually consistent by
its codified protections of natural, human rights (pillar 3).
Now, let’s talk about Cuba, Venezuela, China, and North
Korea.
Now, let’s talk about authoritarianism, populism, and
progressivism.
Comments
Post a Comment