I would like to look at two different socialist systems, one works and one doesn't. I hope that exploring why they work or don't, we can see why, in America today, socialism is not the answer.
The first system is a part of the Roman Catholic Church. They call themselves the Society of Jesus, Jesuits for short. The Jesuits are an extraordinary group of men who take a vow of poverty. They rely on their individual labors to fund their communities, which meets our definition of socialism. When one joins the Jesuits, it isn't a surprise that they expect you to take the vow. And it takes a very committed personality to accept this vow. The Jesuits are mainly educators. The Jesuits opened the very first secondary school west of the Mississippi river in 1818. Prior to that, if one wanted an education, you had to go back east. They take education seriously, and believe that God ordains for people to educate themselves. They are also evangelical. The reason they worked the missions in the early 1800s or even today is to spread God's word. An educated individual can read the Bible. An educated man can think; a thinking man can see God in their world. To be upfront, I am Jesuit educated. I truly believe the Jesuits made a difference in my life, and I thank God for them. At a recent reunion, I was talking to classmates, we decided that education is more about learning how to think, than indoctrination. Not once were we 'preached' to by a Jesuit. Rather, we were taught how to find answers. In fact, several times over the centuries, the Jesuits have been in trouble with Roman Catholic leadership, but they tend to stay steadfast in their beliefs and goals. One of my classmates joined the Jesuits, his name is Jeff. Jeff has been obedient to the Jesuits, has worked in missions in South America, and is currently teaching in St. Louis. Jeff has never, since joining, received a paycheck. Jeff owns no car, nor does he own a house. Yet, Jeff can get to where he needs to be, and has a roof over his head, due to his contribution to the community. The last time I saw him, and we are in our mid 50's, he looked pretty good. A smile on his face, not starving and still willing to do what it takes to be obedient to the community. The school we left so many years ago is one of the most financial stable schools in the nation. They have tuition, and on its surface that tuition seems very high, but they educate students from all strata of society. In our class there were sons of Cab Drivers, as well as the son of the Mayor of St. Louis. There were families that would be household names in St. Louis and beyond, and families who lived in very modest blue collar areas. It is an urban school, in a relatively financially poor neighborhood that attracts students from across the Metro Area, and from two states. They graduate a number of National Merit Scholars, and I remember one year when they were so proud that their championship football team had more National merit Scholars, than any other team in the state. By any measurement the Jesuit system, at least in this school works. So we have a Socialist system that works, and has for centuries.
The second socialist system that we need to study was the very first socialist system in the Americas, they were socialist long before Marx was born. The original Pilgrims that came to America formed the Mayflower Compact. Part of this compact set up a 'company' store. If you were a farmer you would take your crops to the store, and come away with other products you needed like fabric or metal works. From each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Problem was that the Pilgrims, while religious, were not as committed to not earning what they are worth. You could argue the value of goods and in our system today that value is determined by money, then it was just by needs. The Pilgrims nearly starved to death. It was easier to not try to grow as much produce and spend more time playing with the children or other diversions, than to drive a plow in the fields. And after all, the plow was in the store, regardless the amount of the crop. It wasn't until, at some point, they changed the system, monetizing it that real productivity went up. They were then more successful as a colony, and they decided to celebrate that success, we call it Thanksgiving, yes the Thanksgiving Holiday we celebrate even today.
What is the difference between these two systems? It is how committed the individual is to making it work. If you can get the individual to be committed, then a socialist system will work. If not, it won't. And most people are worried about themselves, they do care for others, but they have an instinct to survive and thrive. When we take away that need, unless each part of that society is totally committed, the system will fail. Like The Soviet Union and eastern Europe, survival was the key component to their collapse, as was the Pilgrims so many years ago. In a small micro society, you can search for the committed to join, in the macro society those not committed will bring down the system.
So while Socialism may be a noble ideal, the make up of man prohibits its success on a macro level. Yet we should always strive to grow our humanity, we should always encourage as much productivity from each as they are worth, a good definition of Capitalism...
No comments:
Post a Comment