American Socialism

The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy that has long embraced both capitalism and socialism. True?

Our efforts have both up- and down-side issues, or course. Cap and Soc are amoral, neither good nor bad, ethical or unethical.  Each is just a top-level category name for how things get done.

An entertaining Tea Party perspective ...

Capitalism gives us our free markets, individual economic mobility, and a venue for innovation and talent.  It's the foundation of our strength and viability in the world economy and our status as the world's only superpower.  

Socialism gives us our public schools and universities, public parks, roads and highways, sewer and water, dams, harbors, along with social support initiatives such as worker’s compensation, unemployment insurance, social security, and so on.  Universal healthcare is in the queue lately.

Capitalism
In common usage, it is an economic structure in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated.  The investment of capital, the prices of goods and services, all are decided by a free market rather than by the state. In capitalism, players in the market are there for profit.

Socialism
Most generally, socialism refers to state ownership of common property, or state ownership of the means of production.  A socialist state would be one in which the state owns and operates the means of production and controls the marketplace as well. 

Modern developed countries combine socialism and capitalism in broadly varying ways.

In a purely capitalist economy, there would of course be no public schools, no public works, no welfare, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, Social Security benefits etc.


The University of Texas is a 'socialist' implementation, for example, because it is owned and operated by the state of Texas. The kids on campus are the beneficiaries even though they pay for the privilege. The same is true of highways, parks, harbors, dams, ports, bridges, levees, fire and police departments, airports, Army/Navy/Air Force, and the list goes on.

Simplistic name-calling perhaps reflects our preferential bias and lack of perspective more than our thoughtful participation in America's direction.

CAVUTO: Colonel David Hunt joins us now, the Fox News military analyst, in Boston. Colonel, I'm wondering whether this is a military threat -- leave aside the energy concerns -- but a military threat to our country now? 

HUNT: Yeah. There is no question. Oil -- oil is a weapon. And I think what you are finding with Iran, Bolivia, and -- and Venezuela, that it absolutely is being considered. 

Bolivia nationalized their oil and gas industries in 2006. No, despite news media claims of 'fair and balanced reporting, it was not a military threat.  Not their first such contribution ...

While it is possible to appreciate the perhaps noble intent of the media players, we might be better advised to sell the tv and get an education instead.


It is perhaps worth remembering that socialism, like its alternatives, is an adaptation to circumstances. It is not a virtue, not a standard for judgement, not a measure of right or nobility. It's just another 'ism' where virtue is dependent on the players.

See American Capitalism, if you like.

I could have done more

A member of the Polish underground during WWII,
Karski risked his life uncovering the NAZI holocaust.

Polish 2nd Lt. Jan Karski was captured by the Russian army, handed over to the Germans, escaped and went underground with the resistance in Poland. While gathering information for his government in exile, he uncovered what was being hidden from virtually everyone including the German citizens; the Nazi death camps.

With the help of colleagues in the underground, Karski managed a brief surveillance of the Warsaw ghetto where the city's Jewish population was slowly starving to death. Persuaded there was more, he managed to sneak into a Nazi transit camp where Jews were held prior to being shipped off to the murder factories that Heinrich Himmler and his Einsatzgruppen had established.

Karski traveled to the U.S. with his message, meeting with President Franklin Roosevelt. He gave a simple, clear description of the nature and scope of the atrocities being committed. Roosevelt concluded the conversation, assuring Karski that the war criminals would be dealt with after the Allies had won. Karski later met with Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter who was himself a Jew. Justice Frankfurter was incredulous and told Karski emphatically that he didn't believe him.


Despite the urgency of the message, the Allies failed to follow up on the issue even as further proof surfaced. For the rest of his life until his death in 2000, Karski lamented the failure, distraught that he had not done more.

Heroes don't always win, but they always try.  They're heroes because they didn't pass by on the other side of the street.

Wikipedia Note: Karski met with Polish politicians in exile including the Prime Minister, as well as members of political parties ... He also spoke to the British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, giving a detailed statement on what he had seen in Warsaw and Bełżec. In 1943 in London he met journalist Arthur Koestler, ... He then traveled to the United States, and on July 28, 1943 Karski personally met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Oval Office, telling him about the situation in Poland and becoming the first eyewitness to tell him about the Jewish Holocaust.^[10] During their meeting Roosevelt asked about the condition of horses in Poland.^[11] Roosevelt did not ask one question about the Jews.^[12] Karski went on to meet with many other government and civic leaders in the United States, including Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Cordell Hull, William Joseph Donovan, and Rabbi Stephen Wise. Frankfurter, skeptical of Karski's report, said later "I did not say that he was lying, I said that I could not believe him. There is a difference."^[13] Karski presented his report to media, bishops of various denominations (including Cardinal Samuel Stritch), members of the Hollywood film industry and artists, but without much result. ...^[14] 

During an interview with Hannah Rosen in 1995 Karski said about the failure to rescue most of the Jews from mass murder;

“

It was easy for the Nazis to kill Jews, because they did it. The Allies considered it impossible and too costly to rescue the Jews, because they didn't do it. The Jews were abandoned by all governments, church hierarchies and societies, but thousands of Jews survived because thousands of individuals in Poland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland helped to save Jews. Now, every government and church says, "We tried to help the Jews", because they are ashamed, they want to keep their reputations. They didn't help, because six million Jews perished, but those in the government, in the churches they survived. No one did enough. [21]

”

After the war, the Allies lack of response was viewed as a failure of intelligence.  Reports were many, often contradictory, and difficult to believe.

Identity - Affinity - the Common Heart and Mind

Us vs. them -- how we all get it wrong and how to fix it.

Who the heck am I?  And what about them?  It's a mess trying to figure it out, and you can waste years getting it wrong.

Our identity seems to come from the place where we fit; our group gives us that sense of self, of having a place.  Henri Tajfel's great contribution to psychology was social identity theory, a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership.

Tajfel tells us that our groups (e.g., our social class, school, sports team, etc.) are our primary source of self-worth.

To fan that particular flame, we all tend to overplay the worth of our own group.  E.g., America is the best country in the world!  We may carry it further by discriminating against the out-group, the one to which we don't belong.  For rude examples from our history, the Italians, the Irish, and others were said to be inferior in many ways!

We're warned, "We dare not rank ourselves among persons distinguished by their
self-commendation. They are not wise, measuring themselves
as they do, comparing themselves with others."
That is, however, the natural (as in non-intellectual) process.  Do we have a choice?

We divide the world into “us” and “them”, the in-group and the out-group.  Without controls, in-group members will tend to create and exaggerate negative aspects of an out-group to make themselves somehow justified and superior as they discriminate. Materialistic rivalry among teenagers is an example throughout the developed world.

Prejudicial views between cultures can result in racism; at its worst, racism can result in genocide, such as occurred in Germany with the Jews, in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis and in the former Yugoslavia between the Bosnians and Serbs.

Materialistic rivalry among

rich kids in Iran.

Henri Tajfel proposed that stereotyping (i.e. putting people into groups and categories) is based on a normal cognitive process, our intellectual tendency to group things together.  In doing so we tend to exaggerate...

1. the differences between groups
2. the similarities of things in the same group.

We categorize people that way. We see the group to which we belong as being different from the others, and we see members of each group as being more similar than they really are. Such categorization is one explanation for the unfounded prejudice and discrimination we see in cultures and individuals.  We separate ourselves from others unnecessarily.

One hundred and seventy ... million!
The Dalit are not alone; 270 million or 21.9% people out of 1.2 billion of Indians
 lived below the poverty line of $1.25 per person per day in 2011-2012

E.g., in & out groups and unfounded prejudice

• Northern Ireland: Catholics – Protestants
• Rwanda: Hutus – Tutsis
• Yugoslavia: Bosnians – Serbs
• Germany: Nazis – Jews
• Politics: Liberals – Conservatives
• Football: Cowboys – Redskins
• Gender: Males – Females
• Status: Upper – Lower Classes
• India: The Varnas and the Dalits (Untouchables)

Social Identity Theory - An Outline

Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed that there are three steps in categorizing others as “us” or “them”. They take place in a particular order.


1.  First, we categorize. We categorize objects in order to understand them and identify them. In a very similar way we categorize people (including ourselves) in order to understand the social context. We use categories like black, white, Christian, Muslim, student, and store clerk because they are useful.

Colonial Mexican Caste System - After the Spanish colonized Mexico, one's
position in a caste system depended on how European or indigenous one
seemed. Both biological and sociocultural indicators were used to
measure ethnicity.

If we can assign people to a category, that tells us things about them that help us interact appropriately. Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to. We understand appropriate behavior from the norms of our group, but only if we can tell who belongs to which group.


2.  Social identification comes next, and we adopt the identity of our group. If for example you have categorized yourself as a student, the chances are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act in the ways you believe students act (and conform to the norms of the group). There will be an emotional significance to your identification with a group, and your self-esteem will become bound up with the group's worth and reputation.


3.  Finally, we compare. Once we have categorized ourselves as part of a group and have identified with that group, we then tend to compare our group with others. If our self-esteem is to be maintained our group needs to compare favorably. This is critical to understanding prejudice, because once two groups identify themselves as rivals they are forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem. Competition and hostility between groups is thus not only a matter of competing for resources (like in Sherif’s Robbers Cave) like jobs but also the result of competing identities.





Conclusion and Caveat

In our human nature, such in-group thinking is not artificial, not just the occasional quirk of culture or circumstance.  It is a real and natural part of every developing person beginning in early childhood and continuing throughout our lives.

Chickens do prejudice?

As modern science and early writers have explained,
we're not without a choice.  The mind can be
rebuilt, renewed, changed, despite our
less than perfect tendencies,
 our human nature.

By nature, that's the way it works, and it can be destructive to all involved unless we consciously choose otherwise.



That's 'nature' to the extent that animals do it naturally.  Chickens do prejudice! Chickens, in the photo (above, left) ostracise the one who's different.  When you feed them, the big red ones will attack the little grey one if it tries to join in.  
If it's so natural in the animal world, shouldn't we as humans have risen above such behavior?  Of course.  Sapiens.

By itself, understanding these things does little to avert a life of pointless selfishness and separation unless we are profoundly changed; formed naturally and reformed again as thoughtful and aware, perhaps.  A second birth sort of thing.

How might we avoid being conformed to this common heart and mind?  Can we instead be transformed into something greater?  If ever there were a worthy goal, being rebuilt in the image of some magnificent human (as opposed to animal) would be worth a life's investment. See Romans 12 for a practical description of what's involved.

Narrow minded exclusivism is automatic unless challenged and deliberately changed.
I.e., we're chicken-ignorant unless we find the way out.

___________________________________________________________________

Thanks and a hat tip to S. A. McLeod, (2008). Social Identity Theory and to The Apostle Paul and others for laying out the way forward.

You might appreciate The Adult Mind and perhaps Adult Thinking.

Bullying... Willing to do harm

It follows the same brain path as prejudice, discrimination, and abuse. Looking at the underlying motive, it's about the same as getting angry and killing someone.  Surprised?

For decades, we've understood that establishing our social identity includes finding the place where we fit.  We categorize ourselves with others of like color or economic status or whatever.  It provides a sense of being 'in' and perhaps a view of those who are 'out' as somehow less worthy.  Some find self-worth by being 'in' and 'better' than all those losers.  The bully goes further, targeting those on the outside, thus enhancing their own sense of significance.  The process is brutal, and the impact can last a lifetime... in the bully.  Bullies, if not disassembled and rebuilt as healthy humans, will likely grow up to be rectal exit orifices.

Bullying affects the victim, of course.  If their identity and self-worth are attacked and damaged,  they may be unable cope alone.  It can be deadly. Family and other community relationships can soften the blow, even heal the victim.

I remember being ambushed around age 14 by four fellows who corralled me while one beat me badly.  More than fifty years later, I remember them; Don, Mike, David, and what's-his-name, oh, it was John.  To this day, I have no idea what their provocation might have been.  In retrospect, I don't think it had anything to do with me.  I didn't know them.  My family and I handled it.  Some of the scars are still visible.

Verbal bullying, just making fun of others ... nobody gets killed, right? It can't be that big a deal, can it?
It is, and much more.

Science and the bible agree on this one, to the surprise of many.

"You've been told, don't kill, but I'll tell you the rest.  If you're angry with another, you're the one to be judged.  If you insult another, you're guilty in front of the assembly.  If you call them a fool, you're at the gate of hell."  Jesus taught like that.  He let us know it's all part of the same cloth.

Science agrees.  The root of it all is the willingness and intent to do harm.  Being willing to destroy someone's school year is the same character flaw as being willing to take their life.  The fact that you didn't kill them isn't some nobility on your part; it's just the limit of what you think you can get away with.

Whether you buy into karma or 'sowing and reaping' or action/ reaction, the truth is that being a bully will in some measure rot your soul.  It shapes your personal (and unconscious) values as a potentially destructive participant in the social context. You'll make a wealth of bad choices in relationships and business based on that established personal value.

The way out for the bully?  I mentioned the bully's need to be disassembled and rebuilt as a healthy human.  That's where the character failure gets brought out into the open and killed.

Confession, repentance, restitution, and reconciliation; those are the biblical steps.  Effective counseling and professional psychological assistance will provide the same path.

The bottom line ... bullies are losers, literally.  A bully does harm, perhaps great harm, and in so doing, they may doom themselves to living permanently in that soiled diaper, forfeiting the chance to be an incredible person.

Teach the children well.

We all need to understand.

Blue Eyes vs. Brown Eyes, the anatomy of prejudice

Jane Elliot, the controversy

The video here is a slice of a girl's life. She was just eleven years old when a bully posted a video of her on youtube calling her the world's ugliest woman.  Millions of views and thousands of comments, most suggesting she should kill herself or not be seen in public.  

Curious how she coped?

The Ideal Nation

As has been attempted in the past, we must understand and address the gap between rich and poor.  It's growing at an accelerating rate with the US leading the developing nations in its impact on citizens.

This year, more than half of public school students live in poverty.  That's just one of many indicators illustrating the decline of the last half-century.

This gap precipitates troubles; from increased personal debt to increased crime, from limitations on economic mobility to impediments for assimilation, from increased domestic violence to increased international volatility.  As today's equivalent to segregation and discrimination, the economic class structure disenfranchises the majority and grants disproportionate influence to the elite.  Your place below the gap, like poverty, is not your choice; it's done to you.

If you have an opinion, your representatives in government should hear from you on this one.

Je suis Charlie? Pardonnez moi, Non.

Here's your 'stupid sign'.

Radicals targeted a relatively unknown publisher and gave them world-wide attention. Mega-millions worth in advertising, virtually guaranteeing broad interest and success.

'Charlie' is a troublesome offshoot of western 'freedom of speech'.  (OK, you're free to speak your mind, but that doesn't excuse being inflammatory and callously thoughtless, publishing nude depictions of ... let's not go there.)

Where's the line between satire and intolerance?

While celebrities and people across the world are saying "Je Suis Charlie," a counter-movement has emerged questioning the line between satire and intolerance. How far can satire push before it's no longer creating commentary and instead ridiculing ....

Make it real.  Say instead of a religious satire, they had been publishing insulting and disgusting cartoons belittling your children ... in the local newspaper and in fliers on their school grounds ...  and say it had been going on for years, despite your requests that they stop.  How deeply might you be offended?

From the Washington Post ...

"GENNEVILLIERS, France — Rather than fall quiet as requested during a national minute of silence last week, three boys in Hamid Abdelaali’s high school class in this heavily Muslim suburb of Paris staged an informal protest, speaking loudly through all 60 seconds.

Across France, they were not alone. In one school in Normandy, some Muslim students yelled “God is great!” in Arabic during that same moment. In a Paris middle school, another group of young Muslims politely asked not to respect the minute, arguing to their teacher, “You reap what you sow.”

Abdelaali, a 17-year-old high school senior who did observe the quiet minute, said he did so only because he was outraged by the killings in the name of his religion that were carried out at Charlie Hebdo — the satirical French newspaper attacked by Islamist extremists. But he also said he feels disgusted by a newspaper whose provocative cartoons had used the image of the prophet Muhammad for satire — and which continued to do so in its tragicomic first edition hitting newsstands Wednesday morning. “I know some kids who agreed with the attack,” he said. “I did not, but I also cannot say that I support what Charlie Hebdo is doing.”

Within France’s Muslim community of some 5 million — the largest in Europe — many are viewing the tragedy in starkly different terms from their non-Muslim compatriots. They feel deeply torn by the now-viral slogan “I am Charlie,” arguing that no, they are not Charlie at all.

Many of France’s Muslims — like Abdelaali — abhor the violence that struck the country last week. But they are also revolted by the notion that they should defend the paper. By putting the publication on a pedestal, they insist, the French are once again sidelining the Muslim community, feeding into a general sense of discrimination that, they argue, helped create the conditions for radicalization in the first place."

I am not Charlie.  Most are not Charlie.  I'm not a radical religionist either, nor are most others.

While we generally agree that terrorist violence isn't going to solve problems, we similarly agree that deliberately provoking another to anger won't either.

We have Muslim friends in Egypt and Kenya.  Time together and thoughtful conversations over the years have been profoundly illuminating.  We share common values, common goals for our children, common hope for our communities and the world.  And the last thing any of us would do is deliberately insult the other.  

Some truly deserve the freedom for which we've paid such a price.  Others, though it may be their inalienable right, perhaps do not measure up to the responsibility that comes with having such freedom.