THE OLIGARCHIC STATES OF AMERICA

A man running for the House of Representatives had set up in the city park, and Socrates and I stopped to observe. He was declaring to the assembled crowd that his opponent was a socialist, and was pointing out that the Soviet Union was an object lesson for all of us. We should not allow ourselves to go down that road, he insisted, and that the only sensible option for us was to cast our vote for him.

After listening to him for a short while, we moved on. As his voice faded in the distance as we walked, I said to Socrates, “You know, that guy was making sense. We need to make sure that we don’t get any more socialist than we already are.”

“I didn’t realize that the United States was at all a socialist country,” Socrates said. “Last I heard we lived in a capitalist society.”

“Oh, come on, Socrates,” I retorted. “With all the welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid we have, how can you say that we aren’t becoming a socialist country?”

 Socrates stopped and looked at me, squinting with apparent confusion. “What do you think socialism is?”

“Just what I was talking about,” I said. “It’s taking money from people who earn it and giving it to people who don’t.”

Socrates sat down on a bench situated at the edge of the park, and stared at the ground. He seemed to be astonished at what I had just said to him.

“What?” I asked.

“Look around,” he said. “How many businesses around here do you see that are government owned?”

I sat down next to him. “None of them. Unless you count the courthouse over there. But that’s not really a business.”

“Are you unaware that socialism proper is public ownership of the means of production? Consult a dictionary. I’m sure you will find I am right.” [1]

“Ownership of the means of what now?”

“Goods and services need to be produced, don’t they?”

“Of course, if we’re to have them at all.”

“And don’t they come about through using resources and tools?”

“Sure.”

“Now under capitalism, who owns those resources and tool? Isn’t it business owners?”

“By and large. But I’ve seen trades people who don’t work for themselves but have their own tools.”

“But they don’t own the large machinery, right? For example, toolmakers don’t own the CNC lathes they work with unless they’re an owner of the shop they work in.”

“True.”

“But lest we travel too far off the road, do you understand now what means of production is?”

“Yes.”

“And do you understand that socialism involves public ownership of the means of production? I mean, that’s the classic definition. Lots of things are called ‘socialism’ nowadays, almost to the point that it has become a meaningless term.”

“Okay, then, that’s socialism. But I still don’t like the idea of the government taking money from one person and giving it to someone else.”

Socrates smiled. “So, you don’t like the idea of paying taxes that are ultimately paid to defense contractors?”

“That’s not what I mean, and you know it. I’m talking about welfare.”

“So, you don’t object to your money going to the rich, just to the poor.”

I became a little irritated. “Defense contractors do something useful. Without them we wouldn’t be able to defend the country. But people who are on welfare, and get food stamps, aren’t productive. They’re a drain on the system.”

“I suppose you think they don’t work.”

“They don’t.”

“A lot of people on food stamps (actually they’re called SNAP benefits now) are children. [2] Do you think they should get a job?”

“Their parents should.”

“And if their parents don’t, should we just let their children starve? Haven’t you seen pictures of children overseas with distended bellies? Do you want to see that on American streets?”

“No, I suppose not.”

“And many adults are elderly or disabled. Should we let them starve and reduce the surplus population?”

“Not if you put it that way.”

“And perhaps you are unaware that most able-bodied adults who receive SNAP benefits who are able to work do so?”

“No, I didn’t know that. Maybe they should get better jobs.”

“I’m sure they would like to. But I imagine you will be pleased to know that many adults without children, who don’t meet certain requirements, have their SNAP benefits taken away from them.”

“Well, good. People should take care of themselves, and not ask the rest of society to do it.”

Socrates shook his head in disbelief. “Do you think people will just voluntarily sit there and starve?”

“What do you mean?”

“What if you were starving? Wouldn’t you be tempted to steal?”

“Sure.”

“And isn’t stealing a crime?”

“Last I checked.”

“So, you don’t think that a stingy welfare system, or no welfare system, will create crime?”

“Yeah, I suppose I can see that. But I guess that’s what jails are for.”

“So, are you going to starve people in jail?”

“I don’t understand.”

“Aren’t jails and prisons a public expense?”

“Yes.”

“So, how much does society really save by not having a robust welfare system?”

“Okay, I see your point.”

“Thank you. So we’re agreed that a certain level of income redistribution is necessary to maintain order in society.”

“So it seems. But the question becomes how much redistribution is necessary.”

“Good question. What do you think?”

“Well, Socrates, based on what we’ve discussed so far, I would say just enough to keep people from committing crimes.”

“That would certainly be a bare minimum,” Socrates said laughing. “I have to assume you would want to leave out considerations of decency and humanity.”

To that remark I became positively angry. “Look here! I’ve gone with you as far as doing enough to protect society against crime. But there comes a point where we have to be realistic, and accept that nature works on the basis of survival of the fittest.”

“Ah, you’re a Social Darwinist!” Socrates declared, then burst into intense laughter.

“What’s so funny?”

Socrates recovered himself and said, “I’m not laughing at you Jacob. I’m just thinking about the absurdity that so many Social Darwinists don’t believe in evolution.”

“What does that have to do with what I said?”

“Nothing, unless you don’t believe in evolution. But can’t you conceive of a species thriving because its members cooperate with each other?”

“I don’t know.”

“Well, let’s not delve into biology for now. Let’s instead ask ourselves whether democracy is a good thing.”

“It doesn’t matter. We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.”

“I think James Madison would agree with you. But do you know what he meant by ‘republic?’”

“Yes. It means we’re a collection of states, which is why we vote for our presidents through the Electoral College.”

“You’re thinking about federalism. You didn’t realize that what Madison meant by a ‘republic’ is what we would now call a ‘representative democracy?’” [3]

“I didn’t.”

“And wouldn’t you agree that we live in a representative democracy? At least that’s the aspiration.”

“Sure.”

“But do you think democracy can thrive in the United States when it has the highest income inequality in the Western world?” [4]

“Sure, why not?”

“Well, since we live in a representative democracy, don’t those representatives have to run for office?”

“Of course.”

“And don’t their campaigns have to be financed, either directly or indirectly?”

“What do you mean by ‘directly or indirectly?’”

“By ‘directly’ I mean a donation to a campaign. By ‘indirectly’ I mean funding advocacy, such as in a file or advertisement, for a certain candidate without making a direct donation to his or her campaign.”

“I see.”

“Now certainly you would agree that a candidate for office will tend to favor those who make a large donation to his or her effort to get elected.”

“That certainly makes sense.”

“Moreover, you also have to agree that the wealthy are in a better position to make such donations than those of middle income or certainly the poor. Am I right?” 

 “Yes, obviously.”

“So, it shouldn’t be surprising that ordinary Americans have little impact on government policy.” [5]

 “I suppose that’s true.”

“But, then, can it be said that we have a representative democracy worthy of the name if the majority have no say in their government?”

“No, I guess not. But what can be done about it?”

“Do you think that a heavy progressive income tax combined with a negative income tax to make incomes more equal would work?”

It was my turn to laugh. “Good luck with that. If our politicians only pay attention to the rich, how would something like that ever be enacted?”

“But if it could be enacted, would it be effective in democratizing the public interest on government?”

“If it could be enacted, yes.”

“Or, how about this: what if we abolished all private funding of campaigns, either direct funding or indirect, and everyone seeking office would be required to have their campaigns financed strictly with public funds? Would that work?”

“I suppose so. But what about the First Amendment? Don’t even the rich have the right to support the candidates they favor?” [6]

“Okay, but ask yourself why we have freedom of speech. Isn’t it so that every political idea can be made public, and be given consideration for purposes of public policy?”

“That sounds right.”

“But doesn’t private funding of campaigns distort that outcome, such that the majority has no impact on government decision making?”

I had to think for a moment. “Yes, I suppose that’s true.”

“Indeed, doesn’t our current method of campaign funding amplify some voices and effectively silence others?”

“You’re right, Socrates.”

“If that outcome was effected directly by law, so that only some were allowed to speak and others were prohibited from doing so, wouldn’t that be a clear violation of the First Amendment?”

“It would.”

“But our current method of campaign funding accomplishes the same result, doesn’t it?”

I had nothing more to add. “You know, Socrates,” I said, “you'd better hope that you don’t become well-known with your ideas.”

“Why is that?”

“Why? Because you’ll be shot, that’s why.”

“Everybody has to die sometime,” Socrates said.

 

--Jack Quirk