Socialist America
Published in Al Watan
(Saudi Arabia) on 27 October 2011
by Mohammed Hassan Alwan (link to original)
Why are the Chinese moving toward capitalism after staging their biggest revolt in the name of socialism? Why are the Americans moving toward socialism after building their global glory on the foundation of capitalism?
In two simultaneous scenes this month, thousands of activists in the United States have occupied Wall Street, a symbol of capitalism, while China is strengthening its censorial control over its people from fear that the attitude of the Arab Spring will spread to the country. The protesters on Wall Street are demanding fair distribution of wealth, which means moving the economic median toward socialism. The Chinese have several economic demands — to free giant Chinese companies from government ownership and to reduce the government's control over means of production. This means moving the economic median in the direction of capitalism.
Of course, these coinciding events do not mean that there is a happy medium at which everything is resolved and complete justice is achieved. This midpoint cannot be defined, as it differs not only from society to society, but also between phases of time in the life of a single society. The demands of the Chinese, which seem legitimate and reasonable now, would not have seemed legitimate or logical at all after the Mao revolution of 1949. The people would have perceived these ideas as a cultural regression and a retreat to the feudal Dark Ages in a time when socialism was a pioneering and progressive ideology on which the people prided themselves. As for the protesters of Wall Street, perhaps if they had launched their movement in the middle of the last century, their fate would have been to face suspicion of socialism in a time in which McCarthy law predominated. The American Senator Joseph McCarthy injected the American nation with fear of socialism to the point that the country turned on its own people before the U.S. Congress stopped his campaign and silenced his propaganda.
Why are the Chinese moving toward capitalism after staging their biggest revolt in the name of socialism? And why are the Americans moving toward socialism after building their global glory on the principles of capitalism?
I believe the reason lies in the dynamic nature of human societies. The suitability of socialism or capitalism for successful application in any society depends on the conditions of the society at the time, as well as the stability of factors that influence it economically, culturally and socially. When these factors change, the society also changes, and it becomes necessary to re-examine economic trends. The problem is that societies change in ways that differ from those in which economic trends change. The first happens naturally, with minimal guided or intentional interference, while the second requires great effort to shift a heavy economic structure within a legislative framework that must be flexible enough to allow this.
The legislative, political and economic systems of many countries have been able to keep up with social changes and apply the economic system that was closest to achieving the society's aspirations and prosperity. Singapore, in its phase of building and growth, was closest to the socialist model in terms of government control over means of production and in controlling even minute details of Singaporean families, such as birth control. Even though Singapore transformed into an advanced manufacturing country, it gradually adopted a more open approach to the market and granted its citizens freer opportunities in social and economic movement. One who follows the economic legislation that Western parliaments have adopted in the past four decades will find a reasonable degree of balance between proposed legislation and the social conditions of the time, particularly in northern Europe.
However, this balance does not get easier with experience, but grows more difficult as the process of change speeds up. Effecting change is a complex practical aspect of economics that requires political courage, so it is difficult to find a person with the appropriate qualities from among the leadership. It also requires legislative experience and wisdom, which makes it difficult to find a qualified person from among the legislators. Who can decide now whether it is more suitable for Russia, under its current circumstances, to embrace capitalism or to cling blindly to socialism — especially when Russia's current capitalism has made it a scene of double financial and political corruption, but its former socialism made it an instrument of tyranny and torture? Who can decide what Brazil must do during its phase of growth and what it must do after it achieves development?
These are difficult questions for large economic entities, for which it is difficult to correct mistakes if they err. They are also difficult questions for small economic entities, which do not possess tangible influence on the global economy and cannot predict the movements of the powerful. In the past two decades, the opening of trade, economic globalization and the information revolution sped up the pace of social change more than ever before. During this time, government institutions responsible for keeping up with social changes could not keep up with these changes economically; the institutions of Wall Street became outdated, while the Chinese ministries became bloated.
The chasm has widened between the aspirations of the people and that which the government is able to achieve for them. How can America give the protesting masses a share of the wealth of wealthy individuals and companies without driving these companies away to countries with lower taxes, causing the plan to work against the country? How can the Chinese government relinquish its ownership of giant Chinese corporations without increasing the disparity between the wealthy and the poor in a way that threatens the social structure and warns of social unrest? On the surface, the protests in the West and the growing grievances in China seem to be protests against poor living conditions, but at the core they are a protest against governmental bloat.
The greatest nations have the power of influence, but their giant size deprives them of necessary flexibility. Poor countries have neither of the two. It follows that the few nations that still have both the ability and the flexibility to keep up economically with the aspirations of their citizens fall into two categories. One is of nations that grow gradually, allowing them to adjust their path throughout their growth and before development is complete, after which it becomes difficult to make modifications. The other is of nations possessing great wealth, which protects them from the consequences of choosing the wrong path and allows them to make adjustments without direct harm to the citizens.
In two simultaneous scenes this month, thousands of activists in the United States have occupied Wall Street, a symbol of capitalism, while China is strengthening its censorial control over its people from fear that the attitude of the Arab Spring will spread to the country. The protesters on Wall Street are demanding fair distribution of wealth, which means moving the economic median toward socialism. The Chinese have several economic demands — to free giant Chinese companies from government ownership and to reduce the government's control over means of production. This means moving the economic median in the direction of capitalism.
Of course, these coinciding events do not mean that there is a happy medium at which everything is resolved and complete justice is achieved. This midpoint cannot be defined, as it differs not only from society to society, but also between phases of time in the life of a single society. The demands of the Chinese, which seem legitimate and reasonable now, would not have seemed legitimate or logical at all after the Mao revolution of 1949. The people would have perceived these ideas as a cultural regression and a retreat to the feudal Dark Ages in a time when socialism was a pioneering and progressive ideology on which the people prided themselves. As for the protesters of Wall Street, perhaps if they had launched their movement in the middle of the last century, their fate would have been to face suspicion of socialism in a time in which McCarthy law predominated. The American Senator Joseph McCarthy injected the American nation with fear of socialism to the point that the country turned on its own people before the U.S. Congress stopped his campaign and silenced his propaganda.
Why are the Chinese moving toward capitalism after staging their biggest revolt in the name of socialism? And why are the Americans moving toward socialism after building their global glory on the principles of capitalism?
I believe the reason lies in the dynamic nature of human societies. The suitability of socialism or capitalism for successful application in any society depends on the conditions of the society at the time, as well as the stability of factors that influence it economically, culturally and socially. When these factors change, the society also changes, and it becomes necessary to re-examine economic trends. The problem is that societies change in ways that differ from those in which economic trends change. The first happens naturally, with minimal guided or intentional interference, while the second requires great effort to shift a heavy economic structure within a legislative framework that must be flexible enough to allow this.
The legislative, political and economic systems of many countries have been able to keep up with social changes and apply the economic system that was closest to achieving the society's aspirations and prosperity. Singapore, in its phase of building and growth, was closest to the socialist model in terms of government control over means of production and in controlling even minute details of Singaporean families, such as birth control. Even though Singapore transformed into an advanced manufacturing country, it gradually adopted a more open approach to the market and granted its citizens freer opportunities in social and economic movement. One who follows the economic legislation that Western parliaments have adopted in the past four decades will find a reasonable degree of balance between proposed legislation and the social conditions of the time, particularly in northern Europe.
However, this balance does not get easier with experience, but grows more difficult as the process of change speeds up. Effecting change is a complex practical aspect of economics that requires political courage, so it is difficult to find a person with the appropriate qualities from among the leadership. It also requires legislative experience and wisdom, which makes it difficult to find a qualified person from among the legislators. Who can decide now whether it is more suitable for Russia, under its current circumstances, to embrace capitalism or to cling blindly to socialism — especially when Russia's current capitalism has made it a scene of double financial and political corruption, but its former socialism made it an instrument of tyranny and torture? Who can decide what Brazil must do during its phase of growth and what it must do after it achieves development?
These are difficult questions for large economic entities, for which it is difficult to correct mistakes if they err. They are also difficult questions for small economic entities, which do not possess tangible influence on the global economy and cannot predict the movements of the powerful. In the past two decades, the opening of trade, economic globalization and the information revolution sped up the pace of social change more than ever before. During this time, government institutions responsible for keeping up with social changes could not keep up with these changes economically; the institutions of Wall Street became outdated, while the Chinese ministries became bloated.
The chasm has widened between the aspirations of the people and that which the government is able to achieve for them. How can America give the protesting masses a share of the wealth of wealthy individuals and companies without driving these companies away to countries with lower taxes, causing the plan to work against the country? How can the Chinese government relinquish its ownership of giant Chinese corporations without increasing the disparity between the wealthy and the poor in a way that threatens the social structure and warns of social unrest? On the surface, the protests in the West and the growing grievances in China seem to be protests against poor living conditions, but at the core they are a protest against governmental bloat.
The greatest nations have the power of influence, but their giant size deprives them of necessary flexibility. Poor countries have neither of the two. It follows that the few nations that still have both the ability and the flexibility to keep up economically with the aspirations of their citizens fall into two categories. One is of nations that grow gradually, allowing them to adjust their path throughout their growth and before development is complete, after which it becomes difficult to make modifications. The other is of nations possessing great wealth, which protects them from the consequences of choosing the wrong path and allows them to make adjustments without direct harm to the citizens.