Integrationism

There are few truly “Socialist”* economies left in the world, that is, economies in which the State owns and controls all of the means of production and distribution, such as capital, land, factories, etc. Most have failed to meet the needs and expectations of their citizens, and thus have been altered into other forms.

Similarly, there are few purely “Capitalist” economies in the world, that is, “Laissez-faire” economies in which private citizens and corporations own the means of production and distribution and are free of government restrictions. It is a fact of history that private individuals and corporations have brought upon their fellow citizens many financial panics and depressions, life-threatening working and living conditions, fraud, etc. In the words of a contemporary and respected economics professor, Nouriel Roubini, “Laissez-Faire Capitalism Has Failed.”

Because of these historical experiences, the majority of large social groups have discovered that it is best to have a mixture of private and government economic activity. Some services are best provided by governments, such as national defense and administration of justice. Some services may be better served by private undertakings, such as the production and distribution of food and household commodities. In still other cases it has proven necessary or expedient to combine government and private assets to obtain a desired economic benefit.

I have seen these economies referred to as “mixed” economies, but perhaps they deserve to be recognized as a distinct economic system: “Integrationist.” From this perspective, most nations of the world are practicing “Integrationism,” mixing private and public undertakings according to their desires and experiences. Of course, the nations may still be authoritarian or democratic in their political structure, with consequences I have discussed in previous posts.

In my view, the purpose of a democratic government with an Integrationist economic system is, or should be, to ensure that private and public economic activities are effectively and pragmatically regulated, supervised, and evaluated to ensure that all members of the social cooperative will benefit, not just the wealthiest or most powerful among them.

Alex Budarin

*Tea Partiers have bastardized the word “socialist” to refer to any country which has extensive government provisions for citizen well-being.

Republicans Behaving Badly

President Obama and his policies seem to bring out the worst in those people who constitute the current Republican base. Even when the topic is something as boring as government-insured healthcare!

I think I know the roots of this Mad Tea Party.

The core issue in this dispute is the role of government. Republicans believe that the government should have a role in our defense and little else. They trust corporations more than they trust government. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that government also has an obligation to ensure the general welfare and equal protection of American citizens. When corporations, public and private, fail to ensure the general welfare and equal protection of American citizens, democrats believe the government is obliged to intervene on behalf of American citizens. Because Republicans do not recognize any constitutional obligation for ensuring the well-being and rights of anyone beyond themselves, they are outraged that the arc of American politics since 1901 has inclined more and more in favor of the democratic ideal. This has been true even under Republican Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt [Pure Food & Drug Act, Employers Liability Act, railroad regulation, and trust-busting] and Richard Nixon [Consumer Product Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration]. But it has been most dramatic under Democratic Presidents, such as Franklin Roosevelt, who was responsible for the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Administration, and Lyndon Johnson, who pushed for Medicare and The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republicans fought loudly and bitterly against Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act. Franklin Roosevelt, like Obama today, was accused of engaging in socialism.

So, what happened after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s programs were enacted? American capitalism flourished and spread. And it will do so again with “Obamacare.” Far from destroying capitalism, it will encourage Americans to try setting up businesses, because they will never have to worry about finding and paying for individual health insurance for themselves and their families at the same time that they are trying to get a business going. “Obamacare” will be there.

The reality is that the government programs which were instituted to ensure the general welfare and equal protection of American citizens have helped maintain our society. The “America” that they replaced was an America that was obscene in its cruelty and callousness toward the well-being of Americans. Maybe Republicans love “America”, they just dislike and distrust their fellow Americans. We can not let this country fail just to calm their paranoia.

Republicans must remember that Obama has the power and the authority that a majority of the American voters gave him. He is doing what the majority of Americans voters elected him to do. Republicans will have to live with this like I had to live with the fact that George W. Bush was my President for 8 years.