Socialism?

I've been doing a decent amount of thinking on the so-called Socialism of the president-elect who conservatives can't seem to stop complaining about. "Redistributing the wealth," as it's called, is an indictment on Capitalism, which has a heartbeat of rugged individualism. Individualism, it turns out, is absolute, delusion-breeding nonsense. No man is an island; who we are is a product of external decisions outside of our control, which only potentially can be acted on by free choice. Individualism claims that everything rests on the responsibility of the individual. The individualistic response to a person predestined to psychological abuse by his family, an intellect worn down by stress, poisoned by neurotoxins, and ultimately genetically defunct, who clearly can't progress, isn't just "tough shit," but, "it's your fault," with the elliptical deletion of "you poor, lazy bastard." As one member of an online forum crushingly put it:

Under the rules of individualism, man is the cap'n of his faith.

THEREFORE

1. Anything that happens in his life, is by his own doing and his alone.
   
2. If good things happen (wealth, health, success) then he must have done good things; if bad things happen (poverty, sickness, failure) then he must have done bad things.
   
3. Circumstances beyond his contol do not apply (see rule one)
   
4. The actions of others have no effect (see rule one)
   
5. Groups dynamics are either illusions, abhorations or of no consequence (see rule one)

THEREFORE

Man must be the cap'n of his fate.

There are clearly serious problems inherent in Capitalist systems. As of 2001, the top 10% owned 71% of wealth, the wealthiest 1% owned 38%, and the bottom 40% owned 1% of all wealth (Peter Phillips). To recapitulate: the bottom 40% owned 1% of all wealth. In case you've already forgotten: the bottom 40% owned 1% of all wealth. And that's seven years ago.

There are many factors that attribute to this. See David Shipler’s “The Working Poor” for a relatively detailed account. The rich typically are born into rich families; they have the resources, values (extremely important) and psychological support that springboard them to success a million times more likely than the average entrepreneur. The poor families, however: they have higher probabilities of sexual and psychological abuse (most notably from society, with its incessant, “it’s their fault they’re in this state”), a history of non-progressive values, a higher chance for genetic insufficiencies with relation to areas such as intelligence (and the psychologists of today are pointing out how genetics is much more responsible for traits such as intelligence than environmental factors), malnourished diet (leading to malnourished intellect), neurotoxins associated with poor living conditions (leading to a malnourished intellect), and other things, other things. It’s very simple: if you live in a well-to-do family, you have a well-to-do chance of getting ahead. If you don’t, your chances are virtually shot.

No wonder people "abuse" Welfare; they are probably caught in the dehumanizing memetic set that they can't be anything, that they aren't worth anything, that they are incompetent -- an incompetence that Shipler argued so lucidly pervades even unskilled labor jobs. Who on earth would be content with poverty-level governmentally-supported cash when they could easily make fifty to sixty grand with a little direction and appropriate values? But, alas, poor people don't have direction; they don't have progressive values; and both direction and values aren't their responsibility. You can't improve when your thinking leaves no possibility for improvement, and the fact that you're caught up in certain thought patterns isn't your fault unless you're taught to critically analyze everything and refuse to critically analyze anything (how many Republicans vote straight ticket while peripherally looking at their wallets?) -- but, again, this ability is a (dying) quality instilled by higher education. And the claim that people are riding the wave of government intervention and refusing work is almost certainly a myth. Does Welfare give people an incentive to avoid work? Doesn't look like it.

What to do? Government regulation? I guess. Increased taxes on the Obaman fashion? I guess. A tenacious dedication to universal eduction? No guess. That's what it all comes down to; and if the goal can ever at least approximately be reached, laissez-faire for everyone. Education might be the great equalizer; those who have the means from a poor background will meditatively consider this poor background and find fresh fire to thrust them forward and make something of themselves, equating the outcome of the careless rich who swallow the entreaties of tradition and the snug families who support them.

But that's a little too idealistic. It's hard to find truth attractive when you have drugs and cheap sex as unashamed accesses, when all your friends and family have gotten hitched at nineteen with three kids by twenty-four, when you're caught in the groupthink click of the cliques that exist as a sanctuary of look-afters in view of the hostile, careless outside world. If a spread of education will work, it will take time.

But what Washington hotshot wants to altruistically support potential business rivals? Maybe there are people who actually think that the heart of democracy isn't profit-making but, you know, freedom, egalitarianism, a fair shot. And maybe this inexperienced-therefore-uncorrupted, eloquent, intelligent future president with a terrorist sounding name will actually keep to his good ideals. That's much better than not having good ideals.