A Libertarian Socialist's Manifesto
A Libertarian Socialist’s Manifesto: Part II [1]
The Problem Posed by Welfare
& the Need for Social Insurance
No one places great value on things they get for free. If they get enough handed to them without earning it they will surely develop a sense of entitlement. If you try and take it away from them they will become like obstinate and spoiled children who are prone to tantrums when they do not get their way. Welfare is not the hand up that many would like it to be. Programs such as these are hand-outs and rather than empowering people to take back their lives it forces them into beaurocratic sanctioned poverty.
Government run welfare programs have created a welfare class in our society that is neither empowered nor encouraged to improve the quality of their lives. After nearly 60 years of such programs that are better left to private charities and religious organizations, we now have multiple generations of families on the public dole. Children who were born into welfare poverty are growing up to join to the roles of the welfare class as adults and their children will do the same. Perhaps, every once in awhile a unique and driven individual will rise above their means and conquer the world on their own terms. But for the most part the government has created a class of parasites who except to be helped.
The system reinforces this attitude by thwarting the efforts of those earnest souls who wish to improve their life by holding them back or removing benefits before they are completely on their feet, thus ensuring that the more timid will not take any real chances for fear of losing benefits. The process of obtaining benefits is discriminatory and dehumanizing and reinforces racial and social stereotypes. The idea behind welfare is noble. After all who can find having compassion for those who are less fortunate a bad thing? But welfare is misspent compassion. It is the result of poor liberal theorizing.
A certain level of social insurance is a good thing and every society should have programs in place. But they should be available to everyone across the board and not doled out based on stereotypical ideas of need. However, we must realize that social insurance is a product and service just as it is in the private sector therefore there is a cost associated with it. It can’t be given away for free because the “states” money is our money. We pay for it one way or another either through payroll taxes or other forms of taxation imposed upon us, often involuntarily, in order to pay for those who supposedly cannot take care of themselves.
Insurance is not an entitlement. It is a safeguard that you pay for in the case of an emergency. The notion that there are people who will not be able to take care of themselves is true. However, their numbers aren’t as large as we would think. There will always be those who are tragically mentally ill and unable to function in society or those who are developmentally disabled that don’t have the typical capacities that the average person has. But most everyone else is capable of doing something to earn the fulfillment of their needs.
Even the so-called developmentally disabled who in less enlightened times would be called retarded; morons and imbeciles are capable of doing many simple tasks. There are several government subsidized corporations such as Garten Services and Shrangri-La in Salem Oregon that employ developmentally disabled people. Why isn’t the unsubsidized private sector encouraged to hire more developmentally disabled people?
The developmentally disabled are people! Just like you and me and many are very eager to please and to work. They take pride in having jobs and receiving paychecks. Instead of continuing to marginalize them why not integrate them more fully into our every day society? We will all be that much richer for it. Not only will they earn a paycheck they can help subsidize the very programs they need through payroll taxes.
Grocery stores are a case in point. An average union grocery clerk working in the produce department can make up to $17.00 per hour or more to “stack apples” and stock the shelves and break down boxes. Why pay a person $17.00 an hour for that? In an unregulated free market economy the chances are that the same produce worker would be making considerably less. An apple stacker doesn’t require much in the way of intelligence or skills to do the job adequately. Some of our so-called developmentally disabled people could fill such positions and by doing so force the former apple stacker to put his talents to better use. Not to mention that the developmentally person would be contributing much more to society and reduce some of the burden required to care for him and her. You may argue that many of these people still need assistance in caring for themselves and you would be correct. However, there is nothing wrong in allowing them to contribute more to their upkeep.
Let’s take the example of the apple stacker further. While he is making $17.00 a CNA whose job requires a bit more skill and special certifications often make $10.00-$12.00 an hour. Now a CNA has less skills and specialized knowledge as an LPN or an RN they still have more than a produce worker. Yet in our society we attach a greater, albeit inflated, value to what the produce worker is doing.
This has more to do with the “socialization” influence of the modern labor movement than it does with free market trends. Once upon a time the labor movement was necessary to help right some of the injustices that were wrought upon the working class as a result of the capitalists and the industrial revolution. Some of these injustices were so egregious that it gave rise to the ideas of the shrill and angry Karl Marx and others such as him.
The Decline of the Labor Movement
& the New International Workers
The labor movement accomplished many wonderful things for the worker and it was a necessary movement. Through the workers struggle child labor laws were enacted, reasonable work hours established and many other benefits. In the late 19th century anarchists and Marxists such as the notorious Emma Goldman were frustrated because Marxist ideas were not taking root in the United States. The American worker had a different ideal than those in Europe and in Eastern Europe where Marxism had its strongest foothold.[2] Unlike their European counterparts, American workers were not angry that there were rich people or even people of privilege. They just wanted to be treated fairly and have a reasonable chance at getting their own piece of the American dream for themselves. They just wanted to benefit reasonable in respect to their efforts.
This has been the classic difference between Americans and European workers. Europeans were quick to jump on the socialist democracy bandwagon (those that didn’t embrace Marxism) and Americans by and large want the government out of their lives so they could remain to pursue their own course. At least that was the way it was. In recent years the labor movement, bloated by its own greed and beaurocracy, has become less efficient and less able to bargain effectively for its membership. In recent years a huge rift in the mega labor coalition of the AFL-CIO when several member Unions decided to part company raised questions as to the efficacy of unions. At the present moment that rift was largely repaired and many of those departing unions have returned to the fold yet the question remains.
In our growing global economy unionized workers are more at risk then ever before. No longer are they competing with only American Workers were the political clout of their union leaders can sway influence, they are now competing internationally for those same jobs. Whether the jobs are being outsourced to countries such as China or India or being given to guest workers sponsored by the corporations hiring them, the competition has become way fiercer. These new international workers are willing to work harder, longer and for less compensation than the inflated ego of the American worker will allow.
Whether we like it or not we now live in an age of Globalization and it is here to stay. We had warnings…plenty of them. Ross Perot, lunatic that he is, warned us of the “Giant Sucking Sound” to the south as he referred to the proposed NAFTA agreement during the 1992 presidential election. In 1994 Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement betraying not only American workers but Mexican workers as well.[3]
To Be Continued….
Before we go on to part 3 we will need to continue our discussion on NAFTA, Globalization and Illegal immigration. While Illegal immigration is a problem it may be being blown out of proportion. We will then propose that Americans and Latino Immigrants work together rather than continue on this divisive course. We will show that the Latino community does not represent a threat to the middle class but they have a certain quality that can actually boost the wilting economies in places such as the mid-west.
[1] Once again I feel compelled to remind you that the idea of Libertarian-Socialism is a joke. It’s my way of saying that if I trusted human nature more I would mostly likely be Libertarian politically. But human beings being what we are a certain level of social insurance is necessary. That being said the sole purpose of this series of posts is to create a working outline of the problems and concerns of our present situation. Once this is complete a more serious and well researched work can be created that will offer clear and concrete solutions based on fact.
[2] It is a subtle irony that Marx developed his ideas based on the industrialized nations of Western Europe. Marx envisioned his proletariat’s revolution taking place in the more industrialized Western Europe but it really occurred first in the more agrarian countries in the East.
[3] NAFTA or the North American Free Trade Agreement cannot be laid at Clinton’s feet alone. His predecessor George H Bush began negations during his term. NAFTA was touted as the solution to illegal immigration and promised great benefits to both the American