Topic: Political Theory
Socialism Part Three: Warfare and Welfare The relationship of the federal budget with regard to the Socialization of Warfare and Welfare.by Gene DeNardo
(centrist liberal libertarian)
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thomas Jefferson: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
It is important at this point to discuss a critical difference between Socialism and socialization. We have said that Socialism is the "ownership of the means of production" by the state or the resulting system of government. Socialization is the process by which control is created and exercised by the state or the group. They are related but not identical.
The presence of both Socialism and socialization can be found by examining government expenditures. The federal budget consists of three items, Warfare spending, Welfare spending and spending to sustain the government. Even much government sustenance spending can be classified into the first two categories. Any spending that is not defense related or related to the maintenance of our system of government is Welfare spending. This, of course, includes many things that are not entitlements but that the recipients are certainly not entitled to.
We have touched on corporate welfare in the other articles of this series, and we won't reiterate those points here, but rest assured government spending is welfare whether it enables a destitute family to eat or a multimillionaire to fly around the world in his own jet on the public dollar. Being mindful that polar examples such as these are of paramount importance when we are making judgments on the justice of implementing a welfare system of any kind.
As is the case with empires throughout history the Warfare arm of the United States government is pure and simple, a form of Socialism. Our government owns the munitions, buildings, production facilities, tanks, fighter planes, intelligence operations, technology, the vast resources used on a daily basis to sustain our military endeavors.
Since a "job" in the armed forces can entail loss of one's life or the requirement of taking another's, this Socialist arm of our nation also "owns" the labor involved in Warfare. This is a form of slavery with the only element of debate centering on whether "voluntary" enlistment would dilute the burden of the crime.
There has been little evidence of human civilization without the accompaniment of a war or defense machine. It seems only the strong survive. And ownership has been predominately socialized. For obvious reasons placing the safety of a society in the hands of a well armed private contracted army has usually proven to be detrimental. It is not long before that army no longer contracts with the State but becomes the State!
Similar to the rest of our political history, our military evolved from the most unlikely of beginnings to the largest and most dominant War machine known to humankind. From a group of shabbily dressed and poorly armed revolutionaries, fighting against the oppression of a distant monarchy, to the future present techno battalion, equipped with any killing tools borrowed money could possibly buy, furthering the cause of the corporate empire, always claiming to be in the "interest" of the American people.
We have perfected a twist on this socialized destruction; sharing the profits of war with private defense corporations. Often under the guise of "national security" these defense contracts initiate under "non-competitive" bids and usually take shape using "time and material" payment structures. The margins are legendary and result in a large transfer of wealth from the general public directly to the defense industry. As you already know, corruption is commonplace and deception and fraud are the norm. It is reassuring to know the defense of our nation is in good hands!
It is also worthy of note that the financing of our Warfare machine and that of the majority of dominant armies throughout history has occurred outside the realm of "natural" economics. By that I mean, the production of the economy is never substantial enough to fund the aggressive segment. Because of this, debt is incurred that can eventually lead to the downfall of the society or the outright institution of an economic system based on force rather than choice. This system is possible as long as the force can be maintained. In simple terms, aggression has repeatedly been proven not to be economical sustainable and is often only sustainable by further and increased aggression.
The socialization that occurs in the Welfare segment of our nation is in contrast primarily based on the administration rather than outright ownership of the "means". It is true that we presently own some elements such as "public housing", etc. Also, one of the original welfare forms was that of Roosevelt's "public work projects", which included ownership. We can find examples in the other articles of this series, such as the highway system or the school system, but by and large, government has made itself responsible for the collection from the citizen and redistribution to the private sector of the funds necessary for the existence of this sector.
Entire industries have grown up around the distribution of these "welfare" payments. Payments from programs such as Medicare have helped foster the growth of monopolized corporate health care. Funding for so called "affordable housing" has instituted a ponderous mortgage industry that prospers more on self enforcement of fraudulent lending practices than service to the housing market. This all transpires while we maintain one of the highest homeless populations in the developed world. Examples like these show government chooses business subsidies over actual satisfaction of basic human needs such as health care and shelter.
Social Security was originally instituted to provide a "fund" for retirement of America's workers. When the Supreme Court quickly deemed this unconstitutional, the terminology was altered to phrase the collection of funds as a "tax". Perhaps, this explains the logic of using the "Social Security Surplus Trust Fund" [2.3 trillion in 2007] to purchase "special treasury securities". Not accounted towards the debt, this insures that our government can use our retirement funds for the general budget, the taxpayers can pay the interest due back to their own fund and when the notes come due, the taxpayer can refund his own money back into his own retirement plan. Gee, could this be one reason the system isn't working?
A good chunk of the budget is dedicated to social welfare; the care of our population. We have attempted to address poverty and failed. We claim to want to "fix" health care so needed services are not denied, but we fear the enforcement of an actual free market on the health care industry. We abhor homelessness, though the fact is it is impossible to receive government services without an address. This is analogous to dying of thirst in the desert and the government water truck pulls up and immediately pulls away claiming you have no glass to put water into. Compared to many countries that we often refer to as Socialist, such as most of the European nations, we don't spend as high of percentage of our output on social programs. But the amount we spend is not effective and much supports a gigantic bureaucracy.
The remainder of government spending excluding Warfare is market intervention. It is socialization, a transfer of public funds back to targeted areas of the economy. Every dollar benefits some business interest, with few exceptions large corporations, or segment of the economy and disadvantages the citizen and taxpayer, not to mention the economic interest or segment not receiving subsidy.
The tax system itself is one big socialization. There is little attempt at instituting anything close to a fair implementation, instead, taxation is nothing but an inverse of the budget. The use of taxpayer payments or lack of to benefit some and disadvantage others. They are reverse sides of the same coin.
Any form of government, other than voluntary, is by nature Socialist. Government must "own" itself, its own means of production, is a social form and is therefore Socialist. The classification of a particular society as Socialist is a matter of degree, not basic nature, and often places greater emphasis on economic structure.
One of the initial historical actions of an impending Socialist State is confiscation of property. Our nation was borne due to the theft of a settled land and the entitlement to the new United States. This was accomplished using the two dominant standard practices utilized when unjustly claiming property, force and fraud. Whether flown under the banner of freedom or communism, the action and results are the same. Some of this resulting land and resource was distributed to individuals who promised to utilize and foster its development but the bulk of the wealth created from this vast land base was instrumental in eventually growing the corporate conglomerates that are so prevalent in today's world. There was little effort to justly distribute or market this bounty, it was proportioned and still is, as the State sees fit.
Various examples that at first glance appear innocent, such as the interstate highway system, power generation, these are Socialist enterprises, created and owned by the State in a manner that centralizes control, inhibits free market development and encourages monopolization of selected industry. These "advancements" have taken from the individual citizen at least as much as has been given. And they have taken from private business and corporate interests far less than they have given.
Our government's evolution from a fledgling Republic to a monstrous, Corporate Imperialist State that dominates the world has not come by vote of its citizens. It is a direct result of the Socialization of the vast wealth of our country. The budget and the debt are all symbols of this Socialization. It matters not what side of the aisle these expenditures originate from, War and corporate subsidies or social welfare and labor related, they are indeed socialization. What we are today is the result of more than two centuries of this process.
Taken in that historical light, few surprises are hidden in current events. What is today is not the result of some great change or sudden shift in the seat of power but the culmination of a deliberate distribution that has only gathered greater momentum. This socialized distribution has been primarily upward and centralized rather than outward and across and is only really unique in the "incorporation" of the resulting wealth and its occurrence under the guise of a "free market". Lofty ideals are nice but as my Mom always said, "Actions speak louder than words!".
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gene DeNardo only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gene DeNardo is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2009-02-13 16:55:35
good stuff Gene!
One of the many questions that pops into my head from time to time, and especially after reading your article is where should our modern government draw the line? help out the starving mother of two with food, shelter, and health care or not? surely the line of spending taxpayer funds should be drawn before it gets to the boss on the corporate jet (and it really isn't!) but how can we spend $9.7 trillion - something like $1500 for every person on the planet and not assist our (American citizen or immigrant too? smile :) mother of two.
I would hold this probably wouldn't be necessary under a prosperous free market economy as the example of the mother is really just common human decency - which in today's society the American people largely expect the government to provide, regardless of the fact that Mrs. Smith #2 may be giving up schooling, better food/health care, etc. for her babies while she is working two jobs to support not just HER babies, but also to help completely support the starving mother of two.
So the system you described above is also a reason why this welfare exists (or does not exist, if you walk around a major US city you will still see plenty of unfed homeless). From having traveled parts of the world where EVERYONE has a very low standard of living, it does pain me to see this in my home country. On a comparative scale, America STILL - even as the vampires of the FED and corporatocracy suck at it - is so unbelievably rich that it is rough for me to see the unfed and homeless on the streets and to think that their numbers will only increase in the coming years.
What is your opinion on where "the line" should be drawn?
Two facts I abhor, the amount of wealth we have and the fact there are still homeless and starving people and the amount we spend on human welfare and the fact that it doesn't get the job done or is wasted on people who don't need it.
It seems common sense would do it, but we are short of it!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
