The Enlightenment of American Style Socialism

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 25 June 2009
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nicholas van Heyst. Edited by .
There is a joke that has quietly circulated its way around--In 1949 it was only socialism that could save China, in 1989 only China could save socialism and in 2009 only China can save capitalism.

Across the great ocean on the American shore, there is a view that has an astonishing resemblance to this one. On the front cover of the mid-February edition of America's Newsweek magazine there was a very direct heading that asserted "we are all socialists now." Is the United States a socialist country? Without question, it is not. Are there socialist attributes to President Obama's reform? Without a question, there are.

During the campaign Obama was accused by his opponent of being a "socialist," Castro, the Cuban leader, called him "comrade" and, more recently, the Venezuelan president Chavez jokingly said, "Come on, Obama, align yourself with us on the way to socialism!"

With regards to GM bankruptcy protection and the restructuring of financial institutions, Obama's reform measures, invariably, reflect socialistic characteristics. The largest shareholders of General Motors Automotive are now the government and the workers union. This means that this company, which is a symbol of the American capitalist spirit, has become a "state and collectively owned enterprise."*

The financial reform is very much of the same vein, as the U.S. wants to transform the Federal Reserve into what would be a "super regulator," comprehensively strengthening regulation towards the financial institutions. It is also planning to establish a new financial consumer safeguard endowed with authority that far supersedes that of the current regulatory system. This way of doing things is in conformity with the Marxist doctrine of the Communist Manifesto in which Marx foretold a capitalist financial crisis. The American Foreign Policy magazine offered a very Marxist "prescription" suggesting that the "whole financial sector be turned into a public utility" -- perhaps one could say, "centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." (Communist Manifesto).

Something that has an even more socialist flavor than nationalization of enterprise and strengthened regulation is Obama's medical insurance reform. The intent is to give every American affordable medical insurance by means of establishing a government supported public medical insurance program that would compete with private insurance companies. Obama's view on the matter was that "if the private insurance companies have to compete with public option, it will keep them honest and help keep prices down." In other words, the United States wants to use the strength of the government to establish an "everyone has medical insurance" society, very much in tune with the socialist concept of "everyone has rice to eat and everyone has clothes to wear."
 
Of course, the hurdles that must be overcome for Obama's medical reform are not the same. Within the union or medical insurance private sector there is a deep-seated structure that has pushed up the basic cost. One needs to remember that it can be almost impossible for a majority in congress to unite in order to push forward legislation that will topple this deep-seated structure. This so called deep-seated structure is made up of the medical field, the insurance field and several government organizations and interest groups. Thus the hurdles that must be overcome for reform to take place come from those who have a vested interest at stake.
 
Since June 10th, Obama's countermeasure has been to start up a campaign style "canvassing" movement, giving many speeches, town hall meetings, and massive interactive forums nation-wide, mobilizing 2 million grass-roots supporters from all 50 states in order to hold propaganda activities encouraging the rise of national debate.

Getting close to the masses and having the intelligence to make good use of the masses, is a patent move used by socialist countries, yet it is quite evident that President Obama is also highly proficient with this tactic. It seems that it doesn't matter if a country is socialist or capitalist, only those who think like the people, believe in the people and put the people first will be able to prosper and succeed.
  
With regards to Obama's reform measures, left wing magazine The Nation once offered an invitation, which spanned several editions, for socialists to write essays and participate in the debate. This lead to calls for the U.S. to undergo a thorough revolution as well as statements such as one that straightforwardly announced that "capitalism is already dead."
  
Obama doesn't see it that way. He regards himself as a liberal. Within the American governmental system there is always an ongoing struggle between the conservatives and the liberals. The conservatives support a small government with greater social responsibility while the left party prizes a big government with less social responsibility for the people. The conservatives are on the right while that liberals are on the left. It is the ultra-left liberals who tend to be more inclined to socialism. In the McCarthy era, under the backdrop of the Cold War, left wing Liberals often faced persecution, and, as a result, being tagged as a socialist is generally not a very honorific thing.

Of course, the McCarthy era was brief. Most of the time socialism is not seen as a taboo and could basically be placed in a neutral category. Marx's "Das Kapital" is even required reading material in American middle schools. And, following the Cold War the American education departments revised the material used in text books and one of the major measures taken was the remove a lot of the material that was considered ideological.

That is to say that the pragmatic Americans do not stick to their convictions when it comes to ideology. Obama's reforms quickly bring to mind the statement made by Deng Hsiao-Ping in the 1990's when he said, "The market is not tantamount to capitalism; capitalism also has a plan, socialism can also have a market." And now, American practice has also illustrated that nationalization is also not tantamount to socialism and capitalism can also have nationalization.
 
This is the most enlightening thing that we can gain from the way that America practices socialism: there is no one thing that belongs solely to socialism, there is also no one thing that belongs solely to capitalism. Some concepts belong to all of mankind, some values are for all mankind to share. Just as it was said by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, "Democracy, legality, freedom, human rights, equality, universal love – these things are not exclusive possessions of capitalism, they are mutual cultural achievements that have been formed over the long course of history of the entire world and are the values that all of mankind mutually pursue."

*Translator's Note: The quotation marks indicate that this phrase is figurative.


 有个顺口溜悄然在网络流传——1949年,只有社会主义才能救中国;1989年,只有中国才能救社会主义;2009年,只有中国才能救资本主义。

在大洋彼岸的美国,论调竟然惊人相似。美国《新闻周刊》在2月中旬的一期封面上直接宣称:“我们现在都是社会主义者了。”美国是社会主义国家吗?毫无疑问,不是。奥巴马总统的改革有社会主义元素吗?毫无疑问,有。


  在竞选时,奥巴马就被对手称作“社会主义者”,被古巴领导人卡斯特罗引为“同志”,最近委内瑞拉总统查韦斯也开玩笑说:“来吧,一起搞社会主义吧!”


  奥巴马的改革措施中,对通用的破产保护、对金融机构的改革,无不折射出其社会主义特征。通用汽车最大的股东成了政府和工会,于是,这家象征美国资本主义精神的公司,成为“国家和集体所有制企业”。


  金融改革也是如此,美国要将美联储打造成“超级监管者”,全面加强对大金融机构的监管,还计划设立新的消费者金融保护署,赋予其超越目前监管机构的权力。这一做法符合马克思的学说。在《共产党宣言》里,马克思预言了资本主义的金融危机。美国《外交事务》杂志估计,马克思开出的“药方”,将会是号召金融市场的公有化,并“通过拥有国家资本和独享垄断权的国家银行,把信贷集中在国家手里”。


  比企业国有化和加强监管更具社会主义特色的,是奥巴马的医疗保险改革。其目的是给所有美国人买得起的医疗保险,手段是设立政府负责的公共医疗保险计划,同私人保险业者竞争。奥巴马就此评论说:“如果私人保险公司和公共医疗保险竞争,将使他们更诚实,也会让保费下降。”也就是说,美国要以政府之力建设 “人人有医保”的社会,这完全符合社会主义“人人有饭吃、人人有衣穿”的理念。


  当然,奥巴马的医改,阻力之大非同一般。因为在联邦医疗保险和私人保险领域,一股深层次的力量推动了医疗成本的激增。要想在国会组织一个多数联盟,提出一项法案来颠覆这种深层次的力量,几乎是不可能的。所谓深层次力量,就是医疗界、保险界和一些政客组成的利益集团,改革阻力正是来自这些既得利益者。


  奥巴马的对策是,从6月10日开始,启动类似竞选总统的“拉票”活动,发表多场演讲,举行市政厅会议和民众交流,动员遍及全国的200万草根支持者在50个州展开宣传活动,掀起一场全国性的大讨论。


  走近人民群众,善于利用人民群众的智慧,本是社会主义国家的“专利”,美国的奥巴马总统用起这一招来竟然也得心应手。看来,无论是社会主义国家还是资本主义国家,只有想人民之所想、相信人民,以人为本,才能富强、成功。


  对奥巴马总统的改革举措,左派杂志《国家》曾经连续几期邀请社会主义者写文章参加讨论,有人号召美国来一次彻底的革命,有人干脆说“资本主义已经死了”。


  奥巴马自己不这么看,他认为自己是自由派。在美国政治体制里一直存有保守派和自由派之争。保守派支持“小政府、大社会”,自由派推崇“大政府、小社会 ”理念;保守派为右翼,自由派为左翼,自由派的极左人士,往往对社会主义比较喜欢。在冷战背景下的麦卡锡时代,左翼自由派人士遭遇迫害,因此被封为社会主义者通常不是什么光荣的事。


  当然,麦卡锡时代是短暂的,多数情况下,社会主义不是禁忌,基本上可以列入中性,马克思的《资本论》也是美国中学生的必读书目。冷战后美国教育界修改教科书,一大举措就是删除了众多有关意识形态的内容。


  这就是说,实用主义的美国人,对意识形态实际上不墨守成规。奥巴马总统的改革很容易让人想起邓小平20世纪90年代说过的话:“市场不等于资本主义,资本主义也有计划,社会主义也可以有市场。”而今,美国的实践也说明,国有不等于社会主义,资本主义也可以搞国有。


  这就是美国搞社会主义给我们的最大启示:没有什么事物为社会主义所独有,也没有什么事物为资本主义所独有,有些理念属于全人类,有些价值也为人类所共享。正如温家宝总理所言:“民主、法制、自由、人权、平等、博爱,这不是资本主义所特有的,这是整个世界在漫长的历史过程中共同形成的文明成果,也是人类共同追求的价值观。”
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Topics

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Related Articles

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?