OPINION - Guest writer

The old country

Capitalism revisits dark path

I must admit that the old Soviet Union had at least one positive effect on the course of human events in the 20th century. Its aggressive expansion and promotion of world communism forced the dog-eat-dog, robber-baron capitalism of the century's early years to evolve into a more humane economic model that took into account the needs and rights of employees, consumers and the public at large.

With the advent of wage and hour laws, Social Security, Medicare, financial regulation, food, drug and environmental regulation, etc., American capitalism ensured economic growth, individual opportunity and social welfare, and offered a clearly superior alternative to Soviet communism.

With the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the threats posed both by its ideology and military power, however, the humane version of capitalism that we in the United States had come to enjoy rapidly reverted to its sweatshop self. The robber barons are back, and their hired hands in Congress are calling for the repeal of every economic safeguard that has aided the emergence of a broad-based middle class, and coincidentally, successfully inoculated America against a Soviet-style revolution for the better part of a century.

One of Karl Marx's more astute observations is that once the slave is deprived of subsistence within his own chains he has absolutely nothing to lose by revolting against his masters. Were it not for the aforementioned social programs and curbs on corporate power, many more people in our society would find themselves in the position of Marx's below-subsistence-level slave. So what has changed to bring the middle class to the brink of wage slavery? The exploding cost of a number of necessities of life, among them health care, education and housing.

Do those who are bitterly fighting for the repeal of Obamacare not realize that our health-care industry has priced itself out of range of virtually everyone's pocketbook? That one hospitalization for a moderately significant medical condition can bankrupt the average person? That poverty is just around the corner for anyone without decent (i.e., astronomically expensive) medical insurance? That Obamacare at least extends both affordability and accessibility of health insurance to millions of citizens who reside at the tail end of the economic food chain?

Of course, if today's robber barons and their congressional hirelings succeed in repealing Obamacare and degrading other social programs through massive deficit-promoting tax cuts for the wealthiest corporations and individuals, the number of below-subsistence-level "slaves" in our society will grow rather than shrink. Ironically, it will then be only a matter of time before the robber barons will reap a whirlwind of their own creation. And unlike their Russian and Chinese counterparts in the last century, they will find that they have no place to run with their ill-gotten gains.

This is a future scenario worth thinking about before supporting legislative initiatives that have the effect of driving the middle class out of existence and the poor to ultimate desperation.

The fact is that if drugs, health care, college and housing were not ruinously expensive, the federal government would not have to get involved in subsidizing the latter. If banks could be trusted to lend and invest responsibly, there would be no need for federal financial regulation. If industry felt accountable for neutralizing the waste it produces and remedying the dangers its products may pose, we could disband the EPA and FDA. If employers did not routinely overwork and underpay employees, wage and hour laws and other federal protections would not be necessary.

But these "what if" scenarios can't come about spontaneously so long as maximizing profitability remains the prime directive of the private sector. Given the unbridled greed and self-aggrandizement inherent in human nature, such fantasy scenarios probably can't come about under any circumstances. A higher authority that answers to all of us as a society is needed to limit the power of the private sector.

Those who advocate for smaller government do make one good point, however. Government bureaucracies tend toward inefficiency, so there is a persistent percentage of waste in all government programs, whether the latter target social needs, space exploration, defense, or what-have-you. Waste by bureaucrats who have no incentive to conserve the tax dollars that they have been entrusted with is a problem that needs to be addressed aggressively, but the role of government in providing vital services and in containing the excesses of the private sector does not.

You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The idea that government should get out of the business of safety nets and regulation is morally, rationally, and strategically bankrupt. If any doubt remains about such an assertion, I invite the doubters to stay tuned for the next four years. The election of Donald Trump and solid Republican majorities in Congress will prove to be a financial disaster for the average American.

------------v------------

Alex Lasareff-Mironoff of Fayetteville is a Ph.D in experimental psychology (UA) with undergraduate and graduate degrees from Harvard with specialization in Russian language/literature and Soviet area studies. He is retired from the UA College of Engineering, but spent most of his career in corporate America.

Editorial on 12/04/2017

Upcoming Events