“Capitalism, Socialism, Communism and the Economics of Opportunity”

1. Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

2. Socialism is any one of various economic theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

3. Communism is an economic system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.

In my opinion, throughout the years of American existence, we’ve all been capitalists in our public lives and communists in our private lives. Please, before you roll your eyes, hear me out….

Our society was one founded on morality, perseverance, generosity, risk and reward. We’ve always risked much, whether it is life and limb in war, money and livelihood in business, or reputation and time in charity. We have always been a nation of risk takers because our ideology suggests that if you risk, if you take a step of faith, you can succeed. Furthermore, if you fail and continue to persevere, you will succeed, sometime, somehow, despite the odds. Capitalism rewards the risk takers, capitalism rewards the perseverant and capitalism rewards the lucky. Capitalism also rewards the greedy, the dishonest, and the criminal because at its soul, capitalism does not discriminate. It does not have compassion for the weak, the poor, or the downtrodden, it’s a system that does not favor the high caste, the low caste, the politician, the black, or the white. The greater the risk in capitalism, the greater the reward and in it’s purist, most free sense, the greater the risk, the greater the failure. We have been, the vast majority of the time, capitalists and that’s why on every block, in every town, in every city and in every state there is always a success story, a rags to riches through hard work and luck, yet conversely there are also stories of riches to riches through dishonesty or criminality. Freedom and liberty married to capitalism has given rise to the greatest world power in history, yet unlike so many world powers before and after, ours has not sought conquest or domination because, at heart, in private, most Americans are communist.

I know, years ago, I’d have probably been arrested for espousing such an idea, but I don’t mean communist like the former Soviet Union, I mean communist like the definition above. We never thought of the government as a means to redistribute wealth, we did that privately through our churches, our non-profits, our community centers and our neighborhoods. If there was a family at church who needed, we provided. If a neighbor was sick, we brought food, medicine, or took them to the doctor. When our parents became too old to live alone, we prepared a room. If a child was abandoned, we adopted. If an ally was invaded, our sons, brothers, and fathers bled and died to defeat a common foe. We have always tried to be a nation of brothers, neighbors who share, communities who rally to the common good, and people who for the most part did their best to ensure that even the weakest among us were protected. We were privately communist, interested in pursuing the common good and at the same time publicly capitalist, making and taking our opportunities. These two ideologies worked hand in hand, a separation of powers, a check and a balance that promoted personal prosperity while drawing us all toward a common good. The private morality restrained, to some extent, the indiscriminate excess of capitalism.

Unfortunately, as the decades of prosperity have passed, we’ve forgotten the morality, we’ve forgotten to take personal responsibility for our actions and we’ve forgotten our duty to our neighbors, to the weak, and to the poor. Some of us have become capitalists with no regard for others or socialists who work to ensure that the government takes responsibility for our neighbors, rather than giving or reaching out ourselves. We’ve espoused a doctrine that there is no absolute right or absolute wrong, that each is correct in his or her own eyes. We can look at history and see the penalty for divorcing morality from society or look abroad and see the fruit of capitalism without compassion or socialism that begets a plurality of oppressed peasants. The new Russian autocracy has used capitalism without morality to enrich a few and their governmental enablers. The Chinese government uses an oppressed working class to enrich the chosen few, the communist party elite. A Venezuelan socialist president is taking from the rich, lining his and those in his government’s pockets, and then giving a small percentage to the poor. In all cases, the chosen few in power get rich while the majority of the population suffer, and in all cases the only way to go from rags to riches is to be chosen by those in power. We have always been different and that’s why millions of immigrants from around the world have flocked to our shores. In America, hard work, education, opportunity and luck have provided a pathway to wealth for the politically unconnected, ethnically or racially different, or the new immigrant.

What worries me is that our nation’s leaders are considering disconnecting the reward from the risk. By attaching an upward limit on success and selectively taxing the successful in order to return the fruit of their labor to those not quite as successful, we’re saying that there’s a limit to aspiration. We’re saying that there’s now going to be a reward for being average, that those who’ve chosen not to risk or those who’ve risked and failed will be rewarded for being in the middle. The middle class is the heartbeat of our nation and through upward mobility and success they also become the engine for economic growth. New ideas, new small businesses, new services and smart concepts all flow from innovation, aspiration for financial success and the knowledge that risk may bring unlimited reward. If we cap the reward by instituting a tax policy that penalizes the achievers, if we determine that some businesses deserve “windfall” profits taxes but not others, and if we then pass the extra tax revenue to the least productive in society rather than using it for deficit reduction or infrastructure rehabilitation, we will stifle economic growth. My fear is that we will further segment into a society of jealous ‘Have-Nots’ whom rely upon the government for everything and cynical ‘Haves’ who innovate, risk, and succeed. If our leaders continue to suggest that somehow the American system of freedom to succeed is broken and that our citizenry needs the government to ensure its success, then we’ll end up with a citizenry addicted to government handouts, a government stifling growth by an ever increasing tax burden on a shrinking tax base, and a cycle of stagnation and economic decay unseen in post industrial revolution western society. Our economic system is the best in the world because of the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. If success is capped by tax policy or stifled by government intervention, then we’ll cease to be the envy of the world and maybe, just maybe, that’s what the rest of the world desires. We are a free society, we are a capitalist society, and we are a moral society. If we remove any one of these three ideals, we’ll cease to be a successful society and a beacon of hope for millions here and around the world.

"Defender of the Weak"

I was listening to NPR last week and was struck by a profile on a specific humanitarian author. He's written a book about helping the impoverished of the world, the role of the UN, and a critique of worldwide efforts to fight poverty, hunger and violence. I have a heartfelt desire to help those in need and from my college years of travel I have a perspective on poverty unmatched by most Americans. There is no doubt that we should be and could be doing much more to help those in need both here and abroad, but the how overwhelms even the most committed of us.

My heart has broken over the last few weeks as I've watched the HBO miniseries Generation Kill (HBO's take on the Iraq invasion). I disagree with the political message of some of the episodes, but see the humanitarian impact of war on normal people and can't help but envision a world where my family and I are the ones running for cover as our town is bombed or as gunfire rips through the walls of our home. I was struck by the scene of a father who didn't stop at an American roadblock and who's car was subsequently shot up. The only casualty was his 5 year old daughter and his crime, trying to flee the violence. The scene ended with the father asking the American soldiers through an interpreter if he could have his dead daughter's body and he picked her up and carried her back to town. I can't even imagine the horror.

I saw a picture, just this evening, of a refugee child from the fighting in Georgia (a former Soviet state) lying on a table in a school house. Conservative estimates are that 100,000 people have been uprooted from their homes and lives more or less because a former imperial power needs to reassert control over its' weaker neighbors. Thousands dead, more wounded and no one came to their aid.

The aforementioned author would have us believe that the answer to the world's problems with hunger, poverty, and violence is more aid from NGOs, the UN, and sovereign states. He went so far as to insinuate that if organizations such as the UN sent aid workers and money instead of peacekeepers to global hot spots, our world would be a safer and better place. His hypothesis is that well fed people with jobs would not resort to violence to feed their families, etc. I think that he's failed to consider the fact that gangs with guns, dictators with guns, and evil people with guns subjugate the innocent, steal their food, and rape and kill their families. These people derive their power through intimidation and fear. These people thrive on lawlessness and are the same people who steal humanitarian aid to hoard it for themselves and their friends. These are the same people who keep entire populations poor, uneducated, and hungry in order to stay in power. These are the same people who kill their neighbors because of their ethnicity and no amount of money or food will tame their hatred and evil. These people will not stop until forced to, much like a serial killer won't stop until caught and caged. If food, opportunity, and money solved all of our problems there would be no need for police in the US because there is plenty of food, opportunity, and money to go around.

Unfortunately there is evil and there is good and some choose evil despite the opportunity to choose good. There will always be the need to use force to defend the weak until there is no more evil in the world. I know that sounds simplistic and I know the use of force has tragic consequences for those caught in between and we see the horror every time we watch the news about Iraq, but the alternative is worse. Doing nothing over the past 60 years led to 6,000,000 dead Jews, 20,000,000+ dead Russians in Stalin's Russia, hundreds of thousands dead in Serbia and Croatia, hundreds of thousands dead Rwanda, thousands dead in the Sudan, and countless millions others dead who suffer under the heal of tyrants. There is good and there is evil and there is no middle ground. There is one moral law, whether we choose to believe it or not. In the end there will be punishment for those who do evil because there is one Defender of the Weak and mark my words, He weeps for this world and what we've done to it.