Tioga Herald

Three-Penny Op-ed: Socialism, Ambiguity, and Short-sighted Two-sided Contrasts

Everything is presented as black and white. We, the citizens of the USA, rarely get presented with more detail about a subject. If we did, though, too many of these younger generations reject learning and removing the blinders to soak up the details. Thus, the media folks and others can make statements based only on THEIR interpretation and never taking into account considerations for black, white, gray, or other tones or colors of the rainbow. After all, the rainbow naturally occurs when rain and sunlight simultaneously appear before our eyes.

I like Joe Scarborough and have learned a great deal from him, since I first read his article in a business magazine, published in 2005. Even Joe Scarborough, though mentions “free enterprise” and a black and white contrast between that and socialism. I would like to suggest that is not the case.

A Cuban whose family was forced to flee Cuba when Fidel Castro’s troops confiscated her family’s property helped me learn these differences. There is socialist autocracy as dictated by Fidel Castro and there is supply-side economic centrally planned autocracy as dictated by Battista, masquerading as capitalism and “free enterprise.” When this Cuban person visited a socialist democracy where the people are the happiest on earth, Denmark, she commented about how their mobile phone system far surpassed that in America. No wonder the people of Denmark, time after time, have been rated the “happiest on earth.”

The people of Denmark have socialist-capitalist democracy, not autocracy. They also have free enterprise, too. Yet, the American herd mentality, generated by the media in the USA, just use the word, “socialism” to describe Denmark and other Scandinavian nations. Mr. Scarborough, there does not need to be a differentiation between socialism and “free enterprise” capitalism.

In 2005, Mr. Scarborough wrote about the need for regulation. This COULD mean regulating the capitalist markets with an infinite demand or supply. Few supply side industries are infinite. One would think oil is infinite when listening to those who control the status quo in oil, from Texas to the Koch brothers to Saudi Arabia (whose royal family was responsible for 9/11 and for cutting off the heads of their citizens who disobey the autocratic monarchs), and many others. The net result is that we pretend oil is an infinite supply, when it’s not. Big oil works to block the R&D efforts and businesses which can provide more capitalist competition and help do what capitalism is designed to do: competition can help keep prices lower. Supply-side idiots controlling and regulating the markets. In criticism, I say that Mr. Scarborough appears to follow the American supply-side fat cat herd mentality when putting forth the “norm” of there being a black and white contrast between socialism and free enterprise. I just mentioned something which pretends to be free enterprise and it is not, so it regulates its own market and works to destroy a third-party regulator, the government. There was an American family with two presidents who side with Saudi Arabia and the oil monopolies, with one saying, “what is good for business is good for America.” Wrong. Balance is good for America.

The Scandinavian nations prove that socialism can coexist with capitalism and democracy. The Scandinavian nations are more racially homogeneous than the USA, so they don’t have to consider only two sides of the equation with “black and white.” America has to go beyond just two sides of the equation because it is not racially homogeneous. The reason why Americans are against socialism are the same reasons and the common thread which runs through so many issues in America: systemic racism. And I am not being ambiguous here because I refuse to accept those, whether black or gay (Lindsay Graham) who are “Uncle Toms” and do just what the “massa says.” This is the reason why so many white people wish to “make America great again” by going back to the days when white supremacy reigned in America. To these jackass idiots, this makes America great, not human equality as it appears in socialist notions, Social Security, Medicare, ACA, freedom to carry guns (for white folks to use the guns against African-Americans, Latino/a, indigenous folks, as in the past). This is the background of the NRA and the false ideas about the 2nd Amendment. False because it was how the 2nd Amendment was applied for many years when the “nation was great” (according to the MAGA group of the idiocracy).

This would mean that socialism is too much of an “equalizing” force.” Therefore, it is rejected by preaching ambiguous notions about what socialism is. It also means that only white people should be allowed to carry guns and kill by “standing the white-skinned people’s ground” as developed by the NRA (and Jeb Bush of Florida). America needs to BECOME great by getting over these ambiguities and simple “black and white notions.”

This is all said with all due respect to Joe Scarborough. I also say, with due respect, that Bernie Sanders and “socialism” is not, in many respects, the socialism of Scandinavian socialist-capitalist democracies. For instance. According to information I have read, out of Sweden and other Scandinavian nations, there are no government-instituted minimum wages. Why not? My impression is that we are describing a situation in which these nations recognize the role of balance in capitalism. Just as supply and demand in industries helps create a competitive environment in order to provide better prices and for being able to obtain products and services with more “bang for the buck” (value at a better cost), a lack of minimum wage will help maintain this. But. What are these nations doing to train its people so that industries in the future can better serve the demand side of the markets? Are they using privatized education and hospitals in order to accomplish the goals to solve problems? I really doubt it. It is another style of regulating what is done, but doing the regulation responsibly.

Are these nations perfect and more perfect than America? Not likely. There is no perfection. But they might be more reasonable and rational. One could say, “well they don’t have very many black people there.” OK. That might be true, when contrasting with America. But what is that worth? You mean to say, Americans are not able to learn to coexist in a nation where we do have multi-colored people? Bull. I don’t believe it.

I invoke, once again (and again and again and again and again) Frank Sinatra: “we can have fun in fixing an imperfect nation.” Frank Sinatra had a black friend in his “rat pack” who experienced systemic racism in this nation. From white Army troops in World War II pissing on Sammy Davis, Jr., to being denied the same entrances to the same hotels where he and Sinatra were performing, there was a problem in America and that problem was NOT what made America great. No wonder Sinatra described America as “imperfect.” Sinatra was not willing to give up solving the problems of the land he called, “home.”

If people feel they don’t want to be contentious with others, so they just shut their mouths, out of fear of retribution and willingly accept lawyers who pit Americans against Americans with personal injury lawsuits and workman’s comp (rather than equalized healthcare for all), what a shameful, shameful, shameful bunch of Americans. I feel sorry for such people in their scummy ideas against anger and contentiousness when people say, “I am mad as hell and I ain’t going to take it anymore.” Anger and contentiousness against inequality in America, in any form, means we stand up for what is the correct thing for America to do to combat systemic racism (and homophobia, too).

Also to be mentioned is the idea of unions. When either side of unions is irrational and unreasonable, they destroy the balance which should be achieved. The ones with the whips had enough control to knock down the unions which went too far in America. They developed NAFTA and shipped jobs overseas. The irrationality of such bastards on the management side felt forced into a corner by irrational unions. Perhaps that is the case. In the process, these management bastards have increased their salaries and bonuses exponentially, as they still continue to work to destroy unions, in a vengeful attitude which then puts the union people in a corner. These working people think a Trump will solve their problems. Think again, you idiots. His cronies are the ones who wish to continue to replace workers with robots, you idiots, so go vote for idiot Trump and his followers, but be careful what you wish for because you might get something you don’t like or enjoy. As a member of a union, I can say that we faced this irrational attitude with an administration which refused to acknowledge our rationality while attempting to work out compromises at the negotiating table. I suppose I can say I understand why such Republicans acted in the manner they did, due to the lack of balance in unions and their delight at destruction of good things.

One more thing. Regulated capitalism might have elements of socialism, as what I have described here, but only when there needs to be regulation on both sides of the supply and demand considerations (on both sides of union-management negotiating table) and the goal is balance. Lacking this kind of balance and pushing the one-sided aspect of “free enterprise” and we end up getting rid of the “referee” in government (third party). This can be likened to letting Roman gladiators go in an arena and killing people like Christians. Supply-side economics with centrally planned economics from top-down of monopoly-style big corporations is not capitalism because, like the gladiators in an arena, it destroys and “kills” the opposition.

This can also be likened to a what-if scenario. What if an NFL team played a high school football team? What if there were no referees and all the rules were established by the NFL team, including the possibility of destroying human beings in the process? What if such a situation existed? If you would love to see this, then go to h-e-double hockey sticks because you are a savage barbarian trying to invoke your will upon a civilized nation.

My Cuban colleague I mentioned who came from Cuba at an early age in her life, also served on a Civility Committee which recognized coexistence and attempted to teach our students such concepts. Not barbarism. Civility. Coexistence. In America, the imperfect nation that it is, but being able to have fun in fixing it.

I would have fun in creating a democracy NOT based on a two-party system, as well, but based on something similar to the parliamentary system in Britain which went against King George and removed some of the taxes he imposed on the colonists. Bet Americans don’t know about this little aspect. But a parliamentary system night have two parties in control, but there are other parties to which the party which is in control has to make alliances with the parties with smaller numbers in order to name a prime minister. That prime minister has to maintain that coalition and partisanship is shot in the foot in the process. I do not believe the upper house of the parliament has any stupid freaking filibuster rules, either, which decimates the ability for compromise. Go to h-e-double-hockey sticks, Mancin.

With all due respect to those who continue to invoke a two-sided contrast in any form, it’s the resulting ambiguity and lack of compromise in actions (not values), stupid.