Tag Archives: History

Another Essay About Privilege

I’ve lost count of how many I’ve written. This better be good.

Because of the context of using adverbs as nouns, I have bolded those words when they appear in that context.

Thinking about privilege, which I do more often than I let on, it came to me that one of the reasons it is so difficult and maddening to help certain of us understand the concept is that they individualize it. They are, in general, more comfortable as individuals than they are in groups. They take umbrage with what they consider to be a personal attack because they only respond to groups if they imagine they share every quality or when they share no qualities. It is hard for them to envision being a member of a group that has any great measure of diversity, such as being part of as group that is diverse, sharing a privilege that not everyone in the group acts on individually.

It is this part of their nature, be it learned or innate, that is being exploited by those who denigrate and outlaw DEI programs. Diversity has become a dirty word, not simply because they are averse to diversity themselves but because they have been sold a narrative that agrees with them about the nature of groups. They are told confirming information that groups are either completely good or completely bad . The narrative is filled with sordid exemplars of minorities getting unjust preferential treatment in hiring, housing, college admissions, etc. It reinforces the us versus them, sovereign citizen ideation.

An example (now here I go with exemplars) of this individualization is that so many of us react negatively to being told that America has a racist past. They need to make it clear, by immediately stating, loudly, that they are not racist. That’s not the issue. You don’t need to be a racist to belong to a group with the privilege of being a “right” race. Explaining this sort of privilege has always seemed very simple to me. That doesn’t make me a saint. Perhaps I’m an obsessive observer. I certainly get my share of blank stares when I talk about it.

In my world, privilege is always about what we are and not who we are. It’s that simple, but difficult. Making it complex is easy. I am a Caucasian male. That is what I am. I cannot change or alter that. I did not choose it. Any privilege it confers on me is none of my own, personal doing. I have male privilege because I am male and for no other reason. I am not singled out. All males have the same privilege I do, and they also did not choose it. Even trans men have male privilege, although it looks mighty diluted from here. Saying you can prove that not all men display male privilege will get no resistance from me. Some men choose not to take advantage of male privilege; others do. It can be very taxing to entertain this concept, but the fact remains that both using or not using privilege are there for the taking. 

The only requirement to have the advantages of male privilege or white privilege is to be what you are, male and/or white. Not all males choose to use their male privilege, but because they are male, they still have the privilege to use it if they wish. The defining characteristics of a what are that not just anyone else can be what that person is. The defining group is a closed group. Also, that person did not choose to be what they are. The thing that defines a who is that anyone can be any particular who at any time Whos are an open group. Being a who involves a personal choice.

Who we are involves a multitude of factors, the most prominent being that we, for the most part, choose who we are. Unless there are specific reasons we are not able to do or be something we can be whomever we desire. Anyone can be a teacher, lawyer, or butcher should they choose to become that and fulfill the requirements. Yes, lawyers get certain privileges that you and I do not, giving the appearance of a what. But, remember that anyone who passes the bar can be a lawyer. The privileges of the what of being a lawyer are a subset of who the lawyer is.

Privileges and privilege are different things. Privileges are things you can do that others are not allowed to. They are given to you by some worldly authority. Privileges can be taken away, and they can also be earned. A person has ‘privilege’ without it being given. You have it because you are something unique that only certain people can be. It is never earned and can never be taken away. You cannot change what you are. But you can change who you are. You could stop practicing law and become a scuba diving instructor anytime you so desire. But you cannot change the fact that you have type AB negative blood.

Many people become angry and defensive when it is said that there is systemic racism in America. They take it as an attack on their values without the ‘attacker’ knowing who they really are. They will deny being a racist and say you are a bad person for assuming they are. They feel this is accusatory and pigeonholes them as a bad person. They are sure they aren’t what you ‘say’ they are. It humiliates them and they won’t listen to another word you say.

This misunderstanding is significant. It happens largely because of that person’s troubles relating to groups. They feel better perceived as themselves, individually. When told there is systematic racism in America, they only hear that they are themselves being called racists, as individuals. They don’t clearly hear what was said, sometimes because the word racist triggers deep feelings, and they do not listen closely while influenced emotionally by the trigger. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. We all have emotional triggers from various sources. What is heard is that they are part of a group that is racist, and they are angry for being assumed to belong to that group as individuals. What they aren’t hearing is that in America, there is systematic racism and has been for centuries. If you are not a minority in America (read ‘white’) you have the privilege grated to you by very old racist systems.

Not everyone understands systemic racism. There are and have been for a long time, systems that are racist by nature, i.e. redlining, job and educational discrimination, accusations of immorality, assumptive judgements based entirely on privilege with no evidence. People who do not speak out against these things are considered by many to be complicit and as at fault as the actual perpetrators. This is true in one sense, but to be generous, most of those considered complicit either do not know that the racist entities are, in fact, racist. Or, they have accepted a culture that normalizes the racism as natural without critically questioning those cultural norms themselves. This does not let them off the hook in complicity. But it provides teachable moments for those who can approach them truthfully and respectfully. 

Taking advantage of teachable moments is perhaps the best means of combatting the privilege afforded by systemic racism. This is one of the main reasons that MAGA legislatures want to control education by removing incidences of and references to racism, as well as alternative sexual and gender stories and such references from textbooks and libraries, as well as other truths they don’t want their vulnerable children to know. Conservatives, in general, think human beings are evil by nature and must be saved from themselves. They are afraid of ideas. Ideas will corrupt their children. 

It is a reality that many who don’t understand, when given the facts about privilege with grace, humility, and respect, will open themselves up to learning. Teaching truths without proselytizing helps people understand that knowledge is power and not propaganda. Knowing that because Americans committed genocide and encouraged ownership of other humans centuries ago, it does not magically make one genocidal or racist in the here and now. Hasn’t anybody ever told these people that we can learn from our mistakes, regardless of how heinous?

Raising awareness of what privilege is and isn’t is a giant step in the direction of helping all of us improve our lives by appreciating both what we are and who we are, with clarity about the differences. It lets us know which of our behaviors and attitudes we are directly responsible for, and which we are indirectly responsible for in the here and now, both as individuals and in groups. It tells us how not to fear things we are not overtly responsible for but need to know and understand. 

The dynamics of human social interactions and emotional reactions are rarely simple to grasp with facility. But humans of all sorts are capable of understanding those things and looking upon their fellows with compassion for their faults, which are also our faults. Opportunity, empathy, and responsibility are values that everybody has access to. They are not weak traits as we are often told. Paving a path to the embrace of those values for those who are lost might be a thankless job. But more likely than not, there will come a time when somebody appears from a thicket of oaks and, looking around, opens their mouth and heart in awe of the power that comes from simply being human, and realizing that we are all human. Instinctual, absolute truths can and will instantly replace the relative, learned truths of their past. We can unlearn that which is learned but we can’t unwhat what we are.

We can and will shine.

It takes work.

But the brilliance of the light makes it worth the effort.

People, Privilege, and Paradox

There are a limited number of basic and meaningful things that happen in a human being’s life. We are prone to experience any or all of them. Experiences just happen, regardless of our particular place in life. However, one factor that influences the experiences we have is privilege. Privilege is one of the more misunderstood concepts in America. Conflicting definitions of privilege are perhaps the major source of confusion over what it is. Privilege is defined by what we are and not who we are. There are many different whos that we can be, from artist to attorney, from republican to recluse. And there are many whats as well, from British to blind to black to a baby.

A what is a closed set. An American cannot be British. You may say there are British Americans. But that is also a closed set. Not just anyone one can be British American either. What you are cannot change but who you are can change many times and at any time. Anyone can be a who and a who can be anyone. An artist can be black, Catholic, rich, poor or woke. It is true that artist is a type of closed set but anyone can be an artist. So it is also an open set. This is a contradiction. We must realize that a contradiction is not necessarily a cognitive dissonance. Contradictory concepts can coexist and can have subsets that share a place in a Venn diagram.

Thanks for reading Gandharva Loka! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Many people misinterpret the relativity and absolutism involved in privilege. They confuse the who they and others are with the what they and those others are. When people are told they have white privilege that is a what, because only white people can be white and thus only white people can have white privilege. When a person professes to be an accountant that is a who because anyone could be an accountant. One might say an accountant has certain privileges. But because anyone can be an accountant those things particular to an accountant are features of the subset and not privileges.

Often, all white people are called racists by people who don’t understand privilege. It is true that white people have dominated American culture since before the American revolution. They have dominated governance since the beginning of our nation. It is also true that America has featured systemic racism for the entire period of white dominance. Consider that being white is a what and being a racist is a who. For example, asian people can be racist as much as white people. Recall the Venn diagram from above. Some people are in the shared section and some are in the individual section. Some people are both and some people are one or the other.

The truth is, not all white people are racists. Some are, some aren’t. This is the case regardless of whether a white supremacist culture has always featured systemic racism. Because of that cultural connection white people who are told they have white privilege assume they are also being called a racist. They can become angry that they are being stereotyped. This interaction is untrue and divisive. The people involved in these sad divisions are not wrong out of rancor but from a confusion of what privilege is. The misunderstanding surrounding white privilege is not the only instance of division caused by confusion. It is but one of many misunderstood concepts keeping Americans divided. Unfortunately, these divisions are promoted by those who wish us keep us arguing and not realize that we the people are one. They are major problems many others describe better than I.

Regardless of whatever who we are or profess to be, the only what that we all share is being human. Our only universally shared privilege is human privilege. All humans want to love and be loved. All humans want to be happy and have meaning and purpose in their lives. We all think and make decisions and worry and laugh. There are so many things we have in common. These are so basic as to be taken for granted and not rightfully considered to be things that bind us together.

We are small creatures on a small planet in a small galaxy in a vast multiverse. Can lose track of the fact that there is big and small but we depend on it. We recognize different colors on a TV screen as being different. But if the screen is entirely red we do not see any differences even though there are still thousands of individual pixels. It’s easy to see similarities and not the differences as much as we recognize differences but not similarities. That they can coexist gets lost in our addiction to duality. We see the world as black or white but choose not to see the gray that represents unity. One thing for certain, when we are being born we are all the same and as we die we are all the same. What makes us think there is an existential difference between the two?

We are individuals and part of a whole. We are all the same yet all different. It is a most sublime divine paradox. It is this conundrum that is the engine of a life that can contain both mystery and misery, both freedom and boredom. Life is not static nor moving. It is both. It moves and stays. For life to move there must be different places. For there to be different places there must be different spaces and for each individual to exist they must occupy their own particular space. Two of us cannot occupy one space but any of us can occupy any space at any given time. A major life contradiction is how can we be both one and many at the same time. It is this question that we strive to answer all our lives whether we know it or not. We seek out differences to legitimize our own individuality but also we all know in our deepest hearts that the things in life that truly matter are the things we all share, like family, being hungry, and having desires. These things stay.

I love being like you. And I love being me. There is a balance to life. When that balance is upset and we recognize only our differences, life becomes difficult and fractured. If you won’t recognize me, should I care to recognize you? If you don’t respect me do I respect you? I grow weary of spending so much energy disliking people. As an individual I already love everybody. I am called to love by my spirit. But if we are to like each other we must all work together. Love is the Alpha and Omega. If we can recognize and respect the love in each other it will go a long way towards making it acceptable to not like each other. And when it is acceptable to not like each other, because of the presence of divine contradiction, it is much easier to discover we actually do like each other. It is through respect for our shared humanity, despite our differences, that we find unity.

Regardless of who or what we are, when we occupy space in this world we create boundaries for a space I can occupy. For that I am grateful. What you do with your space is your business. As mine is mine. With this freedom we make our space a place. For this process to work we must allow each other a space in which to create our place in this world. We all deserve a place. We all want and need autonomy. I’m here and I belong here. We are also a vast network of souls, whether connected or seemingly not. It’s like this at every level of existence. From the macrocosm of the universe to the microcosm of a Higgs Bosun everything seeks stasis. Everything is individual and part of a whole.

I haven’t posted much lately. I’ve been caretaking my fiancee as she recovers from surgery and have taken on extra work around our castle. I wrote this a while ago. With some editing it is my latest contribution.

This is how I see it. The concepts of relative and absolute truths coexisting in a peaceful and productive world are, to me, what make life incredible, meaningful and exciting. We should embrace them.

Amid the chaos and turmoil there is a path to a reimagining of America. Right now, it is the path less taken.

Only we the people can change that.

Freedoms and Liberty

Let’s have a chat about freedom and liberty. Are they the same thing? No, they aren’t.
A freedom is a right that everybody has, something that everybody wants. For example, we all want to be able to speak our minds, and in America we have enshrined in the Bill of Rights freedom of speech. We can say what we want, free from persecution, unless our speech directly and imminently threatens someone, like in the common example of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Liberty, on the other hand, is a right everyone has, only it’s about what an individual wants. Each of us has their own wants and desires. For example, I might want to rob your house but you probably don’t want your house to be robbed. Liberty creates conflicts of desire.
Where freedoms and liberty come from and what we can legally do about them is somewhat counterintuitive.
The Declaration of Independence states clearly that we all have the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. These rights are considered to be given, by God, at birth, to everyone. Most people take this to mean that these are rights that can never be taken away, which is true. These rights cannot be legally taken away. But, because they cannot be taken away they must be regulated by law. This is because one person’s liberty may conflict with another person’s liberty. It is one reason that we have laws. Disputes about people’s liberty happen all the time and limits to our behavior are established by law. The rights to life and the pursuit of happiness also lead to conflicts between citizens, and also must be limited by laws.
Freedoms, on the other hand, are not inalienable. They are granted, by government, in their governing documents, through laws, or by the courts. For example, the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution, after the fact, because people realized there were freedoms all Americans should have that, unlike liberty, were not God-given and had to be granted by government.
Freedoms cannot be limited except by strict judicial examination and interpretation of the Constitution or through other governmental means. Our constitutional rights and freedoms have limitations that are written into the constitution, or are limited by law, or through judicial rule. And, because they are granted by government and not given by God, they can be taken away by government. Granted, it is difficult to take away a constitutional freedom. It can only be done by amending the constitution or by the edict of a dictator. But it can be done.
The constitution has been amended only 27 times with the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, having been ratified in 1791. That there have only been 17 amendments since then shows how hard it is to amend the constitution. The United States has never had a dictator, elected or otherwise. Our rights have yet to be taken away by force.
The ninth amendment in the Bill of Rights states that there are other rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Those rights are determined through legislation and ultimately by the courts. Because of their non-constitutional status, these rights can be much easier to take away.
A common misconception about both freedoms and liberty is that they confer upon the individual carte blanche to do anything they want and be protected by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. This is not true. Both our freedoms and our liberty can, have, and will be limited and regulated by law and through the courts. It is often overlooked that along with each right we have a corresponding responsibility. It is an important part of being a citizen that we not only know our rights but also our responsibilities. All too often I hear angry citizens complaining that their rights are being trampled on without understanding that limitations on those rights are in force. They had not considered, consciously or otherwise, that they had responsibilities associated with those rights.
This is a significant issue in today’s America. There are individuals and organizations that present very serious threats to the survival of our democracy, based on false and/or skewed interpretations of our founding documents. Many Americans misinterpret the intentions of our founding fathers, through ignorance, by succumbing to propaganda, or on purpose. There is an assumption that they have rights that cannot be limited by anyone, especially government. The threats these forces present to the nation, to our unique philosophy of governance, both from outside and inside the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, are tangible and powerful. We are right to fear them. We are also right to believe in our power as citizens.
Some tell us that the power and strength of the American way of life lie in our capitalist, free-market economy, which has accumulated the vast wealth required to bend the world’s nations to our will. This is not true. America’s strength resides in her people, now and always. Perhaps our most important right, the right to vote, is still ours. We can use it to guide the path of American life, economically, socially, politically, and with equity of race, sex, gender, religion, ethnicity, class, etc. To do so we must be mindful of our differences and develop the skills of listening and humility. We must remember that our freedoms, which include the right to vote, can be taken away, if not through the vote, through the whim of a tyrant.
We can no longer take it for granted in America that we are free from evil in our government, that we are still protected by the checks and balances built into our constitution. We are no longer safe from military action against our citizens or false imprisonment or any of the other horrors of totalitarian rule. Think long and hard before you assume that those who promise prosperity and glory are saviors. Make certain they are not leading us off the cliff and into the abyss of total subservience. This audit of America takes time and active discernment. We have need to start right now. It is by no means easy. It takes eyes and ears and tongues, hearts and souls, and brains. We will not survive if we remain frogs in the slowly heating pot. I can see the steam rising. I don’t pray often, but I pray we can save our democracy.
We have precious little time.

Socialism: What Is It Really?

Socialism is almost a universally misunderstood term. To some it is a pejorative, an awful thing, and to others it is the wave of the future. For many Americans it is whatever their favorite politician says it is. Plenty of governments and political parties of all types have referred to themselves as socialist. Some of them never actually define the word or why they use it. This confusion of definition makes the term ‘Socialism’ what cognitive linguists refer to as a contested concept. A contested concept is one that appears to be clearly defined by a certain word but the word, in reality, means different things to different people. 

One definition of a word is often promoted by a group to advance their ideology or philosophy over another group’s definition. Words have power, so defining them can mean the acquisition of power. Some words or phrases naturally have a variety of definitions, for example ‘interesting’ or ‘love’. Other previously clear concepts, such as ‘equality’ and ‘news’ have been intentionally muddied by people with an ideological agenda. They want to create confusion in the public about the meaning of the word. There is fierce competition between groups to establish a universal definition of a word. Each group wants to lock it into a particular picture or frame, and point it to their meaning of the word over all others. The winner then acquires the power of that word. The word now points to what they want the public to hear.

Socialism is a word whose definition has been fought over for years. Conservatives and capitalists have been winning this battle. But most recently, changes have appeared in the picture they want you to see when you hear the word ‘Socialism’. Most scholars define Socialism as a type of government, usually related to Marxist/Leninist ideology. This is true in many cases, but not all. Conservatives use this definition in their framing of the word. However, it is my contention that Socialism is not really a form of government. It is actually a necessary but separate part of government. How else could we explain why both both extreme right wing and left wing governments have been described as socialist. My definition of Socialism is not universaly accepted. But I believe in it strongly. Socialism is always an economic part of government but it is not a government by itself.  

In America the conceptual battle over the term Socialism has centered on the right wing’s campaign to tarnish the reputation of the word. It has been effective. They have taken advantage of the ambiguity surrounding the word’s meaning. Their tactic has not been to design an alternative definition of the word because today it has no definite meaning. Instead they have constantly bombarded the public with the idea that Socialism is bad. Like their complaint about most things liberal they tie Socialism to the idea that government interferes with a person’s ability to decide for themselves how to live, it limits their freedom and liberty. They have succeeded, primarily through constant repetition, in making it a dirty word to a majority of Americans. Many people now fear that Socialists hate American and will do anything to hurt them, from poisoning their water to stealing their children. These fears were intentionally promoted by conservatives. When they call someone a socialist, or claim a thing is socialist, people are afraid and angry.

As well as tying it to big government, capitalists have implied that Socialism will destroy the free market. Their attacks on Socialism focus on it being big, suffocating government that oppresses people. But their examples are mostly about government stealing people’s hard earned tax money and giving it to people who don’t deserve it. They hate government spending on programs they don’t like and didn’t have a say in. They tell us that a socialist government will take away your freedom to choose your own healthcare coverage. They say that Socialism will choke business until it dies from unnecessary and cruel regulation. They tell us Socialism will discourage the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit that makes America great.

What do all these complaints have in common? They are all about money. They economic arguments. They aren’t about Socialism taking away our right to vote or abolishing the Bill of Rights. They are not about government itself. They are about what government does with our money. These complaints reveal what both the complainers and I consider to be the real definition of Socialism. Socialism is an economic system whose true opponent is not democracy but capitalism. The idea that Socialism represents big government versus the democratic will of the people is a smokescreen. The people who hate Socialism the most are capitalists.

The capitalists who play dirty to keep people thinking that Socialism a dirty word are aware that millennials and Gen Z see through their greedy tricks. Young Americans know that the rich use the poor’s desire to be wealthy to their advantage. They see how the oligarchy dangles the carrot of a nonexistent American dream in front of the poverty stricken, teasing them with the idea that they too can become rich if they just do what the 1% tell them to do. Our young citizens can tell that the system is corrupt and broken and there is no wizard who will give them everything they want. There are just some clever and frightened men behind a screen, pulling levers and manipulating the masses.

The coming political and economic power of people of color and young adults has the capitalists fearful. They have turned their attacks on Socialism up to 11. But in the last several years a new breed of young leaders have had the courage to declare themselves Socialists. They are challenging the capitalists directly. They see a future America where both Socialism and Capitalism have a role in our economy. They are confident history tells them they will prevail.

The American Civil War was based on the North opposing slavery. Yhat opposition was a direct threat to the South’s economy. The current growing political division in America is also based on racial and class struggles that are a direct threat to our wealthy rulers. Over 150 years since the emancipation of the slaves racism is still a major factor in American politics. The coming economic and political power of people of color and the young is bringing to a head this centuries long conflict. we are in a real war between white supremacy’s political and economic domination of our nation versus a new multicultural politics and economy that works for everyone. Socialism or more accurately socialist principles are in the trenches of this fight. The fight over what Socialism really means is intense and important.

An appreciation of what Socialism is and isn’t.

Socialism is a kind of system and philosophy that goverments use to run their economy. The standard dictionary definition of socialism states that it is a government that owns and/or controls the means of production. Significantly, that definition does not say what type of government that might be. A government that controls the means of production can be of any type, from democratic to authoritarian. Socialist economies, no matter what type of government uses them, work the same way every time.

Conservative capitalists continue to constantly tell us that Socialism is a threat to Anerica and a destructive type of government. This is not true. Socialism isn’t really a type of government at all. In fact, governments that feature a Socialist economy are widely diverse in nature. They can be, and have been, both right and left wing, conservative or liberal, with hybrid types in between. Here are some examples. 

Nazi was an abbreviation of National Socialist Party, the political party that ruled Germany during World War II. It featured a government dominated by the Nazi Party, which worked closely with all levels of business plus religious and cultural entities to form an authoritarian, nationalist government. Nazi Germany’s socialist economy was based on the power of the government to force business to follow its orders or face punishment. It was socialism used and controlled by a right wing government.

There also are and were many left wing governments who applied socialist principles to their economies, most of them based on a Marxist/Leninist philosophy. These socialist governments insist that capitalists are only concerned with profits and not the welfare of the people. Therefore it is the people who should rule, control the means of production, and direct the economy to the people’s benefit.

To establish governments with Socialist economies, the people, usually headed by a charismatic leader or leaders, will often overthrow what they feel is a corrupt government. The goal is to give or restore control of the economy to the people. Many of these sovereign nations refer to themselves as People’s Republics. As a Republic they are governed by representatives, usually limited by a constitution. But rather than holding democratic elections that feature two or more strong parties they hold elections where only members of the one ‘party of the people’ are elected.

In these ‘Republics’ the head of the party usually has more power than the head of state. It is also the party which dictates how the economy operates. This kind of socialist economy often works better in theory than in practice. Many of these governmental representatives are chosen more for their loyalty to the party rather than for their ability to govern. Their weakness lets the economy fail. Weak leaders can succumb to the lure of power. Power can corrupt even the most honest of politicians. ‘The people’ who overthrow corrupt governments can easily become corrupt themselves. Therefore, many of these nations are unstable, with one government after another becoming corrupt. The people rise up once again and that government is also overthrown. But the economy remains socialist.

An extreme form of Socialism is Communism. Communism is perhaps the purest form of Socialism in the sense that the government is the economy. In Communism the workers both own the means of production and elect the representatives that form the government. Again, there is only one party, the worker’s party. The two major Communist nations were and are Russia and China, both born of 20th century people’s revolutions.

Russian Communism also featured only one party, the Communist Party. The nation was divided into integrated social, economic, and political units called communes. Thus the name ‘Communism’. The workers elected a committee, called a Soviet, that ran the commune out of those workers who were party members. Central government representatives were elected out of the Soviets. Again, party leaders had more power than the elected representatives. The Russian ‘empire’ or sphere of influence was the called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 

The USSR was a Union because it united a number of previously sovereign nations such as Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, etc. into one functioning government. It was Soviet because its basic political unit was the Soviet. Theese nations were Socialist Republics because they were sovereign states that were dominated by Russia. Russia allowed them to elect and send party representatives to a central government, called a Politburo, that controlled their government, and individual lives, through controlling the communes

In the Soviet economy each commune was given a specified task and was told by government what production goals they were to reach. There was a strict hierarchy of rulers who handed down these orders from the level above them, much like a military hierarchy. More and more pressure was placed on communes to produce more and more to keep pace with western capitalist economies. The economy began to lag behind the capialist nations. Although the USSR had a large amount of resources the Soviet model was not able to take advantage of them. Also, the Communist hierarchy easily became corrupt as opportunites for bribery and lies were numerous. Eventually, over about 75 years of Communist rule, it became clear that communist economics were failing and in the late 20th Century the USSR broke into it’s separate staes, most of whom returned to democracy and capitalism.

Communist China saw the Soviet Union begin to fail as the Soviet form of economics and worker operated government was unable to compete against the challenge of Capitalism. Economically, they realized that some capitalist principles had to be used to compete with the West. The government remained “communist” because they remained a one party government with representatives selected only from within the Communist party. However, they began to downplay their communisy nature and started to call themselves simply ‘China’. Businesses and corporations were allowed to compete in international markets using certain capitalist principles. Still, because government permission and guidance was required for companies to use capital, their economic system became something of a hybrid. This socialist/capitalist hybrid economy has seen greater success than Soviet style economics ever did.

There is another hybrid form of Socialism, one which has had a measure of success. It originated not in authoritarian, one party goverbments but mostly in parliamentary onarhies, where the monarch are primarily figureheads and government is democratly elected from a number of parties. Its appeal is growing in America. It is gathering support from many younger Americans and even some old school American socialists. This American Socialism, often called Democratic Socialism, is modeled after what is known as Scandinavian Social Democracy or the Nordic Model.

I don’t know a great deal about the inner workings of Scandinavian style social democracy. What I do know is the government is democratic, elected by the people. The power of the government and its economy originates in the will of the people. Nordic people have a tradition of working together and sacrificing personal gain to make sure all citizens have security in their quality of life. The Socialist nature of the economy comes from this strong social welfare tradition. While Nordic economies still feature a large amount of capitalist free-market activity, this strong social welfare policy dominates. It is another type of hybrid economy, one whose government is very different from China, but with a similar economic philosophy.

The citizens of Nordic social democracies pay a high percentage of their income in taxes. For this they get such social benefits as publicly financed (not free) healthcare, higher education without fees or tuition, generous parental leave for all parents, nearly unlimited unemployment benefits, and other generous social welfare programs. The Nordic spirit of community motivates Scandinavians to pay more taxes in order to insure meaningful and secure lives for everyone regardless of status. It is largely this strong social safety net which appeals to many young Americans.

We should expect more of these hybrid economies in the future, as it has become clear that neither pure, unrestrained capitalism nor strict and limiting Socialism have succeeded to any great degree. These new ideas have been largely ignored by the leaders of both the capitalist and socialist forms of economics. They still see the world from a 20th Century viewpoint. The failure of these old economic theories stems from the constant economic growth needed by Capitalism and the harshnesss of government control of the economy that defines Socialism. Both are impossibly and/or functionally unsustainable. 

Much to the irritation of America’s conservative capitalists there has been a recent increase of interest in and support of Democratic Socialism. They can no longer avoid the challenge of hybrid economies. Young people are not accepting the conservative definition of Socialism as being a dirty word. They see the hypocrisy of conservatives who claim Nazism and Communism are the same thing and say that Socialism is a government that is desperate to destroy America and Democracy. 

Millennials and many precocious Generation Z youth see through this effort to define Socialism as a threat to everything American. They see that a well thought out social democracy that both respects individual liberty and social welfare is not only desirable but necessary. They want a government and economic system with the honest competition and entrepreneurial spirit of Capitalism and the wise regulation of capitalists and efficient social services found in Socialism.

Americans don’t realize that we have many hybrid Socialist programs already in place and succeeding. Local services such as police and fire services, water treatment and snow removal are paid for through taxes but produced and controlled by government. That’s Socialism. Every time we hear of a “public/private cooperative project” we are dealing with a hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism. Government and private business working together is a growing means of doing large public projects such as road building and bridge construction.

Neither Keynes’ nor Friedman’s economic theories work in the 21st Century. This is something all politicians must learn and embrace. Strictly adopting either demand driven or supply side economic principles by themselves in today’s information and service world is not wise. America no longer has the industrial, manufacturing economy of the past. Hybrid economies featuring modified principles of both Capitalism and Socialism, or perhaps a totally new economic theory are the future.

Until then the battle rages on.