Democratic Socialism: Profile of Failure

Democratic Socialism - A leftist political ideology that emphasizes the principle of equality and usually prescribes a large role for government to intervene in society and the economy via taxation, regulation, redistribution, and public ownership.
Martin Wolf wrote in New European: Nation, State and Globalisation:
Few serious people now imagine that an economy can function without extensive
private ownership or that a socialized economy could support a stable democratic
order. Many complain that globalization means the destruction of the state, of
democratic choice and of national self-determination (pp. 3-10)

Young Democratic Socialists (n.d.) believe that by democratic socialism if a fight for poltical and economic democracy as a collective, and the democracy, social equality, and economic justice are all curtailed by capitalism and other systems, like white supremacy and patriarchy (allegedly mutated and shaped by capitalism). They believe that only through unified action can social change be made. It means being organized. They mistakenly recognize Martin Luther King, Jr., as a socialist. Whatever their success, the seeds of their system are sown at the college and university levels.
There is a proverb from Lao Tze (Waller, 2008, p. 187) the father of Taoism, “Give a man a fish and he eats for one day; teach him to fish and eats for a lifetime.” It is crippling for a strong society to alter its standards so that the only goal is mediocrity among the masses. I have lived this abroad and am now experiencing it in my daily life in the United States. This proverb is the best way for me to explain how Democratic Socialism works.
Democratic Socialism would not allow us to teach this hypothetical man to fish for himself. That is too condescending. After all, if he wanted to fish, he certainly would. Perhaps the fish are not biting, or the supply depleted where he likes to fish. It would be unfair and arrogant to force him to go to another area to fish. So, we must take the fish from the man who has worked industriously for several days. We will distribute all but one day of his catch to those who could not fish for one day. The man who does not fish will get to eat regardless.
The successful fisherman was set to share his catch with several of his neighbors who went out to fish but did not do as well as he did. He was extending charity. He was also going to put some in his icehouse for the lean days to come when the fish would not be biting. He was being thrifty and wise. He was also going to sell a few of those fish. He was being entrepreneurial. He was even going to hire two more fishermen to help him, give them a portion of the catch and a percentage of the fledgling business. He was being ambitious and enterprising. Now his fish will be taken and all of the people will have enough for only one day.
That is, for me, the heart of Democratic Socialism. In this approach we would strive to be mediocre, not only not praised for individual accomplishments, but derided precisely because we dare to achieve above the status quo. I have lived in such a system of government and find that it fails. Wolf (2001) further states:
One of Adam Smith’s most brilliant insights was the idea that free trade gives a
country the benefits of membership of a great empire. Size increases power, but
it is irrelevant to prosperity. Consider Ireland or Switzerland, Hong Kong or
Singapore. All these are tiny economies that have managed to achieve high and
rising standards of living, while behemoths like Russia and Nigeria, India and China
struggle. The power seeker’s lust for size contributes nothing to citizen prosperity.

But this democratic socialist mentality has crept into our daily lives. I received a letter from my auto insurance company telling me that I would now have to advise them of my odometer readings every three years. I dared to ask why. That was unanticipated. The replies I received ranged from a regurgitation of corporate pabulum, with no substantive answer, to “the state demands we do it” and “I don’t know, but it’s supposed to aid us in recalculating your rate. What that means was since zip codes are not acceptable for calculating insurance rates, the use of actual driven miles would be the new standard. In essence, a person who lives in a high-crime area, belonging to a gang, driving four thousand miles per year, would pay less than a person in a low-crime area driving seven or eight thousand miles each year. I dared to ask how their concept could be accurate if, let us say, I took one car trip—and only one—to Chicago and back. This would obviously affect the odometer by several thousand miles and would not be indicative of my normal driving pattern. Again, there was no answer. What if I refused to send in the form? What if the odometer was broken? The answers were: “We would automatically recalculate your driving to twelve thousand miles per year, which is the standard.” To the latter question: “If it’s broken, then you have to go to a mechanic and see if he can help you fix the odometer and get the right mileage on it.” Who can take these people seriously?
In the above example, we see that the “standard” for all drivers was arbitrarily calculated by some imp in a cubicle, following many meetings with other cubicle imps, and would now be applied across the board to those who do not follow the orders, get in step with the rest of the herd, shut up and fill out the form. On the other hand, if I drive thirty thousand miles per year, and ignore the form, then this great plan would work well for me. It would reduce my average by eighteen thousand annual miles. I suspected yet another somewhat sinister move at hand. In California, there is talk of taxing people for the miles they drive. How easy it will be to know the miles driven by using the insurance company methodology. Here is a clear case of the fish being carved up without knowing why we’re carving it or for whom.
Before we proceed, it is worthy to note that Friedrich von Heyer (awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics) argued that even social democratic reform intended, not to overthrow capitalism, but only to curb it. He outlined the differences between social democrats and democratic socialists. The latter believe(d) that capitalism could never be sufficiently humanized. They state that if your push unemployment too low, inflation results; if job security is too strong, then labor discipline will erode (Young Democratic Socialists).
Now we will move on to yet more Democratic Socialism in action. I used a debit/atm bankcard to make a large purchase, knowing that I would have to contact the bank to get a release for that sum to be cleared in one single transaction. The bank was closed and so I would have to call first thing in the morning. I did precisely that. When I casually indicated what I wanted, the bank representative refused, saying that for this week only the bank “couldn’t possibly approve the release of those funds” because bank ownership was “in transition.” He was even haughty and patronizing. I asked how he could even remotely think that he could retain my money. He replied that I could go to the bank and withdraw it. I now had to explain that if I were disabled and could not do that, then there would be grounds for an “American with Disabilities lawsuit.” Now I had really confused things. The telebanker was losing ground, but held fast to his great power. He asked me why I just did not put my purchase on a credit card “like other people.” So, the Democratic Socialist drum kept beating ever more loudly. The gentleman now proclaimed that these “limits” are for my protection. Now that is absolute folly. Of course they are not for my protection, but rather for the bank’s protection. If they release any funds, they are the responsible party. Not for one minute should any of you ever believe that a bank, of all places, is worried about you, or me, or mom, or the girl next door. As the vernacular states, “It ain’t so.”
This is all blatant and nonsensical on its face. True socialistic democracy is much subtler. Wolf (2001) again comes to the fore with his wisdom:
Many think that globalization is the destruction of the state. Democratic politics
can still range between Scandinavian social democracy and American conserv-
atism. Patriotism will also survive. It is helpful to the modern integrated state. An
open economy permits small nations to combine domestic political independence
with prosperity.
Here is another example of how a system could work in a balanced, free society: About three years ago, a young woman I had helped was trained and able to get a job at a well-known hotel. The salary was low but it was a start. She could envision herself coming out of hard times and making something of herself. She aspired to go into catering. She started her job. Immediately, her children’s health care was cut—not reduced, but cut entirely. All food stamps and small apartment rental benefit were halted. Now the young mother was in way over her head. She had to take a bus to work, so she had even less money than when she was on welfare. There was an easy solution, but no one would listen or try it. I proposed a plan where her insurance through the state would continue until the work place coverage would start. Also suggested was to continue the food stamps until her earnings increased by a certain amount per month. Thereafter, the welfare would reduce by the amount she was earning, after taxes. This would mean that if her welfare was one thousand dollars per month and her take home pay was eight hundred, that she would receive two hundred. As her pay increased, the welfare would decrease. When the money went above her former welfare amount, then the food stamps would diminish. Then she could see daylight. No one would consider it. She struggled but lost the job. She had no way to get childcare, couldn’t afford it for full care days. Then she took the children to a family member, on the bus, and then another bus to get to work on time. She was leaving her home at 6 a.m. to accomplish all of this by 8 a.m. The same mess occurred in reverse at quitting time. The children got cranky and unhappy. The family member was not a good babysitter. In fact, because no one could/would teach her to fish, she went home and ate the fish that was given to her each day.
The Democratic Socialist scheme even wants you to limit your family to parents plus two. No, that is not legislated. It is cleverer than that. We have a rule about seatbelts in every state. If you have five children or four and a mother-in-law living with you, you cannot put them all in one normal-sized sedan. You must own an SUV, mini-van, and be criticized as an ecological enemy, gas hog, capitalist pig and many other pejoratives. If you cannot afford a large car, or the gas to fill a monster guzzler, what then? There is an answer. You should have fewer children. Neither is this legislated, but it is the unspoken alternative. Fewer kids mean less expense. Yet, the state absolutely wants us all to be living equally, but equal to whom? Will I be entitled to a home more like Beverly Hills or a barrio? What if I do not like either? Whose salary will I get, a lawyer’s average or a clerk’s? Where are our many ethicists to solve the dilemmas?
Then will come the medical care. The state will decide that at sixty-five, or maybe fifty-five, a transplant would be wasted. Save that for the younger ones. Certain treatments will not be available for everyone, only those who are screened and deemed suitable. Who will decide? Yet, if you are hoarding some gold, or find funds, you will be able to get what you want, on the black market that thrives under such extreme regulation. Essentially, the desire of the human being is to succeed because he is built that way. Humans are built to use their intellect to be better, do better, accomplish, or conversely, to plot, manipulate, distort, and/or live in a morally negative way. Yet, the choice should always, ultimately, be theirs and not the mandate of some faulted system in a forced egalitarianism.
Schweickhart (2006) says that there can be material equality without democracy as well as democracy without material equality. Plato advocated a material equality for his ideal state. Schweickhart further infers that religious orders have practiced a material equality and emphasize strict obedience to superiors. Yet he disregards the fact that those vowed to religious life in an order, so so voluntarily with a spiritual focus, and do so entirely for spiritual reasons. This would be more clearly a theocratic lifestyle, in my opinion. Plato had a great deal to say about democracy and its potential to deteriorate into tyranny. Perhaps this is why we must guard it and protect it so zealously.
Some in government, the United States government, would have you believe they know better; that they will care for you when capitalism fails you. Well, remember our humble fisherman? He was hiring fishermen, sharing the fish, teaching to fish, etc.. Now, of course, there is no fish at all. With no one learning how to maximize the catch, conserve certain types and harvest others, they all just got eaten up, devoured in a very short time. No one questioned; they acquiesced in silence. It was a sad day for the fishermen and the fish. Democratic socialism succeeded in only thing—loss of a resource for everyone, equally.



References
Wolf, M. (2001). New European: nation, state and globalisation. European business review, 13(5), 3-10.
Schweickhart, D. (2006). Democratic socialism: Sage reference project. Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice, , . Retrieved from http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/demsoc.htm.
Waller, B. N. (2008). Consider ethics - theory, readings, and contemporary issues (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
Wolf, M. (2001). New European: nation, state and globalisation. European Business Review, 13(5), 3-10.
Young Democratic Socialists. (n.d.). Retrieved May 11, 2009, from Young Democratic Socialists
Web site: http://www.ydusa.org/printable.php?printable=/news/getinvolved