Recently, an opinion piece entitled, “Socialism: The Creed of Ignorance” was published, and it completely missed the point of what the democratic-socialist movement is trying to accomplish.
We live in a time where productivity and wealth has vastly risen, yet compensation has not adjusted to match. The wealthy continue to get tax breaks under the ideas of “trickle-down economics” and of the “invisible hand.” Trickle-down economics have not worked, and the invisible hand is a myth. Free markets left to pursue their own interests do not lead to the greatest public good. It leads to the system we have now with vast income inequality and greed, where the rich only grow richer and the poor only grow poorer.
Currently the highest earners in our economy pay less in taxes in comparison to the amounts they are earning than the middle and poorest, even though they have the most money to give. They should pay a rate that is higher to be proportional and fair. Even in a democratic-socialist world, these people would still be the richest citizens. All this would mean is giving a bigger share of their wealth to taxes, which is not “robbing Paul to pay Peter” but expecting citizens, even wealthy citizens, to give their fair share in order to benefit the communities they live in and improve the lives of their fellow Americans.
In his article, “Why Conservatives Hate Fiscal Policy,” Tom Streithorst argues that it is not a desire to improve America or protect liberty that keeps the rich and powerful away from fiscal spending like Sanders is planning, but self-interest and a desire to protect their own pocketbooks.
Stimulative deficit spending would empower the working class at the expense of the very rich, and that is the real reason why Sanders’ plans find so much pushback. The rich control the media, and they do not want to show us how increased spending would create jobs or stimulate growth. They would rather us believe these projects are simply too expensive. This is a lie.
Sanders’ programs will benefit Americans without taking away freedom and liberty but expecting equality and balance.
In the end, I reject the piece “Socialism: A Creed for Ignorance” on both factual and moral grounds. His argument rests on a belief of libertarian ideals of property, based on John Lockean principles that if someone puts hard work into something they deserve the products of their labor.
However, this idea is dependent upon whether they leave enough resources for equal opportunity. No one has the right to infringe on the liberties of others, but the way the rich act does just that. Not only do they prevent equal opportunity, these ideas also rest on a very selfish foundation that I do not believe stands for what it means to be a citizen.
The role of a citizen is to recognize that one lives in a community where one must help others and not only look out for oneself. Self-interest is not the only thing that matters in the marketplace and government regulation is needed to protect basic values such as honesty, justice, equality and integrity. At the heart of the progressive movement is not envy and greed, but compassion, equality, and justice. These are not idealistic goals, but are attainable with progressive reform.
To read the full version of this opinion piece and more like it, visit https://comptoncenter.wordpress.com/
Buening is a senior Communications major and intern at the Compton Center for Peace and Justice.