Figure 1.--The Social Welfare Worker's Movemnt (SWWM) was acbocal new left group active in the late-1960s. They were highly critical of capitalism and American society in general. They emerged from the protest-oriented activities at the National Conference on Social Welfare in New York City. Dr. Benjamin Spock was active with the group. The image here is from the Boston chapter. Their arguments were heavy on claims of moralty and attempts to seize the moral high-ground, what they can not point to is a sucessful country with a socialist economy. One author that studied the group writes, "Although SWWM disappeard after only 2 yeaes, interest in radical social work is still very much alive today." Notably the Social Demiocracies in Eyropr are caredful to opreserve core caitalist economies to pay the huge bills of the welfare state. Those that do not, like Greece, go bankupt and have to depnd on the charity of countries with income generating capitalist economies. The people here were Nassachusetts public welfare employees which they belived was a higher calling than business. Few believed that starting a business and creating jobs for people was a moral endevor compared to the good work that they were doing. Most SWWM activities were primarily focused on building radical consciousness. The idea here was that this was a necessary prerequisite for commitment to the movement. Activities included teach-ins, development of a newsletter and mailing list, educational meetings and rap sessions, study groups, outreach to students in schools of social work, disruptions of professional meetings and conferences. [Wencour]

Socialists and Socialist-inluenced liberals always claim the moral high ground in public policy debates. They believe that their actions are inherently moral becuse of the socital goals they were seeking to achieve. This was the case even with the totalitarian socialist states that murdered people by the tens of millions. And of course totalitarian controls are impossible unless the state totally controls the economy. Socialism in esence makes totalitarism possible. Which is hy all of the totalitarian states of the 20th century were barious versions of socialist state organization. Now the European social democracies are another matter. They are dmocratic states with many basic civil liberties and democratic government. But like the totalitarian socialist states they believe that their goals justify a range of actions, especially property seizures. Citizens in these countries pay very high tax ratesvto finance expensive welfare state services. Now in a democratic system, hey hve tht right, but whether it is moral or not is snother question. Most understand that socialkism is a failed system so they mauntain core capitalist economies in an effort to npage the huge bells geneated by welfare systems. Countries that do not, go bankrup and have to rely on the charity of theor European neigbors that do. And the question arises as to if thar is moral to put neogboring states in the position of paying for your social benefits. Foreign to the thinking of socialists is that people who invest their money in businesses and creating jobs allowing others to make a livlihood is a morall ctivity. For mny socilists, employing others is taking advantage of them -- Marx's labor theory of value.

Recognition of Inequities

From a relatively early point in the development of industrial capitlism, social commentators have been disturbed by the inequities in capitalist economies. Rarely pointed out, it was not human inequities that were new, it was the idea that there was something wrong wih inequities. In fact, there have always been inequities in human society. These inequities have been very pronounced since the Agricultural Revolution (about 8000 BC). It is only with the invention of capitalism that social critics appeared that began to seriously question these inquities.

Pre-Industrial Inequities

A great myth of history and economics is that capitalism and the Industrial Revolution created inequities in society. It is a huge, absurd myth. Too often poorly educated writers claim that enormous inequities are a unique result of industrial capitalism. This is simply untrue. Inequities have existed throughout history. And great inequities existed in pre-industrial Europe and the rest of the world before capitalism. Countless students emerge from secondary schools and universities with the idea that capitalism created poverty and injustices like child labor. The simple fact is that the great bulk of humns from time memorial have been poor and living just a little above. Until the 19th century, economies were based primarily on agriculture, even future industrial giants like America, Britain, Germany, and Russia. And the vast majority of the population were peasants who did not own their land. America was a exception here with agriculture based on small family holdings. Yet the idea most people have because of teachers and profesors with liberal biases is that before the Industrial Revolution people lived a kind of idelic rural life. This was not the case for two primary reasons. First agriculture did not provide a profitable existence because of basic technology. Unlike modern farmers with industrial equipment, farmers even in the most advanced countries did not achieve yields much above basic subsistence levels. Second, except in America the rural peasantry did not commonly own their land and much of the harvest went to aristocratic land owners. One author describes life in England, except for meica, the most prosprous country in the world at the time. "Life was difficult and brief, and death and pain were constant presences for most of the Englisg people in the 18th century. No census was taken until 1801, but surviving recirds made it clear that life expectancy was short -- perhaps thirty-five years. People were old by age fifty. Medica care that helped rather than harmed its recipients were practicall nonexistent, Neither villages or cities had any sewage systens except open gutters, refuse was dumped into the streets to rot and pollute water supplies. The stench was staggering and the health hazards grim. Diseases like smallpox, typhus, and influenzaepeatedly swept through the population. The poor had no defenses against the cold and damp of winter. One physician watched the poor in his distruct die from an epidemic in 1727: 'Nor did any other method which art could afford relieve them; insomuch that many of the little country towns and villages were almost stripped of their poor people.' Death was frequent for women giving birth, and infant mortality was especially high about one-fifth of all babies died before they were one year old. Given the high mortality rate of children, some historians believe, it is likely that prents among the laboring poor avoided investing heavy emotional commitmenbt in their offspring. Prudence dictated a certain reserve until parents was fairly sure the child would survive." [Heyck, pp. 113-14.]

Capitalism: Generation of Wealth

What capitalism did was to bring about the Industrial Revolution did was to generate wealth on an unpresedented level. Wealth made have a negative connotation today, but the simple facr is unlike a society generates wealth, no one in a society is well off, except foe example a few people at the very top such as Morth Korea today. But even the people were not as prosperous as those in socities that generated wealth. Capitalism annd the Industrial Revolution for the first time in history created socities that generated enough wealth for common people to lead decent lives. ocial critics point out tht is was not fairly shared, but the simple fact is that enough of the wealth went to people below elite levels and as a result fundmental changes in society began to occurr. And note that these changes only occurred in the West. And the basic unique characteristic of the West was that only in the West did prosperirty and wealth began to reach below elite, non land-owing levels. And it is important to remember that the inequitable dustribution of wealth did not begin with capitalism and the Industrial Revolution.

Distribution of Wealth

Along with the huge increases in the generation of wealth we need to discuss distribution of wealth. There is another historic myth, that before the capitalism and the Industrial Revolution that wealth was more equitably shared. This simply is not the case. And it is not difficult to understand hy. Agriculture was the primary ource of wealth. And most of the land in almost all countries (except England's American colonies) was owned by wealthy aristocrats. There were yeoman farmers in England that had small land holdings, but most of the land was in the hand of large estates owned by powerful arustocrats. And as they controlled the distrubution, meaning they took the lion's share.

Are Inequities Inherently Immoral?

Any discussion of capitalism and morality has to address a central question is equality inherently immoral. Mow we believe that every individual in socity has a right to equality of OPPORTUNITY. Equakity of OUTCOME, however is a very different matter. Do individuals who make no effort at school, engage in rissjy, anbti-social behavior, use drufs, diobey the law, refuse to obtain employmnt deserve the same mterial life style as indiciduals who make a real effort to prepsre thenmselves for work, take care of their kids, and work hard. We do not believe that they do. And we believe that attempting to treat them eqyually, not only harms the people involved, but society in geneal. The simple fact is that the more you reward bad behavior, the more bad behavior you get is the impact of liberal policies on the Adrican Americn family. Currently over 70 percemnt of African-American babies are biorn to unwed-mothers. This was not the case before the liberal accedency in America. Now the liberal policies were done with the bestintentiins, but they and other liberal policies have destroyed countless African American families. And you hav to ask your self if it is moral to create circumsranbce where most African-Americn children grow up without fathers in their lives.

Rise of the Middle-Class

The wealth created bu the capitalism and the Industrial Revolutiomn was so huge that one result was the creation for the first time of a very affluent middle class and better paid workers. That affluence was reflected in many ways. The middle class substatislly changed society.

Redefining childhood

One of the changes was to redefine childhood. And we see ordinary families keeping dogs and cats as pets for the first time.

Child labor

Another of the many myths that we have been been discussing here is that chuld labor began with capitlism and the Industrial Revolution. In fact it was only with capitalism and industrilization that put an end to child labor. It is a myth perpetuated in modern school textbooks. Child labor is discussed in association with the Ubdustrial Revolutiob and in textbooks we see disturbing mages of children woking in mines and factories. In fact child labor began with the dawn of humanity wuth hunter gathers. And in ancuent times, childen worked along with their parents. Biys worked in the fields along withbtheir fathers and gurls had domstic chores along with their mothers. We see this in ancient Egypt. The Egyptian unlike mny ancuent sicieties depicyed the work of the peasatry--the vast majority of the population. And this basic situatin did not change significantly throughout ancient amd medieval times and into the early modern era. It wa not a matter of morality. It was simple economics. For a non-land owning family to survive, the entire family had to work. One historian explains the situation in 18th cetury England before the Industrial Revolution. "Work was unrelenting fir all, since the family economy required each member to contrinuteand since there was no provisions for hadr times or retirement other than prudence and the Poor Law. Employment was seasonal abnd casual for most people. Moreover, pay for women amounted to only about half that for men. Thus a slump in demand, a poor haevest, or the death of a husband usually threw families onto the meager mercy of the Poor Law. About 20 percent of the population were in receipt of poor relief at any one tim, the great majority of them women and children." [Heyck, p. 115.]

Abolitionist movement

Slavery was not created by capitalish and the Industril Revolution. It had ancient oigins. The African slave trade was begun by the Islamic Caliphate (8th century AD). The European African slave trade began much later during the Mercantilist era (15th century AD), two centuries before the advent of capitalism. Now it is true that profuts from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade heoped fuel the development of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. It is also true that it also generated the Abolitionist Movement in England from the very advent of the Inditrial Revolution. And it was the British Royal Navy strengthened by Britain's industrial economy that waged the naval campaign to end the slave trade, both the European Atlantic slave trade and the Muslim Indian Ocean slave trade. And the nail into the final vestigage of African slavery was delivered by the Federal armies financed abd equipped by the industrial north in the American Civil War.

Public education

Democracy

Social commentary

And we see large numbers of individuals with the time to mull over the social condition. And for the first time we see this concern over inequities--essentially generated by the creation of wealth and affluence. One reason that social critics began to question capitalism was the mechanisms of capitalism--Adam Smith's invisible hand. There was no morality to it, rather a cold unfeeling mechanism. There was no morality, the mechanism was purely mechanical, the principle that society as a whole will benefit if individuals are free to pursue their own selfish personal interests. And notice that the first popular discussion of issues such as child labor bd the treatment of the poor occurred during the Victiorian England by authors such as Charles Dickens. All the conditions tht Duickens addresses existed in England bfoirethe advent of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. But it was the middle claas created by capitalism anbd the Industrial Revolution that saw these problems as unacceoptable. And the wealth created by the Industrial Revolution meant that society has=d ghe finmances to do something about them such as to restrict child lavor and fuinance public schools. The same dymamic was at play in other European countries and America. Dickens oproved a sucessful author in part because capitalism and the Industrial Revolution created a population that receoptiv to Dickens' message.

Socialism and morality

Thus social reformers like Marx designed waht they saw as a much more 'moral' system in which instead of pursing selfish personal interests, that individuals would be proivided for based on their needs. Pure Marxist doctrie saw a whitering away of the state, but in fact to redestribute resources a powerful state is needed. And the critics of capitalism see the state as a mechism for inserting morality into the social process. This however presents two fundamental problems for the moralists. First the state is controlled by a political process which may or may not be moral and that morality is something that different people can view very differently. Second, is a moral issue that the opponents of capitalism who claim the moral highround like to ignore. What is the morality of seizing the poroperty of one group of citizens and giving it to another?

Capitalism: Economic Success

Morality is something which can be argued intermably. A much more important question is subject to factual resolution. What social system allows the individual to best develop his or her inate abilities. The answer is capitalism. Ask your self, where have the great discoveries that made the modern world come? They came from capitalist countries, primarily America, Britain, France, and Germany. This is true in virtually every field of human endevor. Why did no major advances in science come from the Soviet Union or other Socisalist countries. Is it moral to limit human aspirations. Why was it the Capitalist West that created not only the industrial technology, but also the new information based technology. Why was it that corporatios created modern drugs and medical procedures? Why was the Green Revolution which saved billions if lives in the Third World generated by the United States. Is it really moral to organize soiciety on the basis of a soicial system thast rather than creating wealth, destroys it. Planned economies did not have the market cycles of Capitalist countries, but they also proved extridinarily ineffiucent, essentially guaranteeing wuidespreas poverty. In Socialist countries a very common phenomenon was that the value of manufactured goods often were worth less than the raw materials used to produce them. This is why the Comunist Eastern European countries, Russia, Cuba, China (before the capitalist reforms), North Korea could not export. And all of these countries had to develop highly coercive state structures to either resistriubute wealth or prevent individuals from pursuing their self interests. Now it is easy to find fault with capitalism, especially if we capitalist countries against the utopias we can all dream about. But of course the only valid metric is to compare capitalist countries with any contemprary country.

Socialism: Economic Failure

Until the Russian Revolution (1917), discussion of Socialism were essentially compating the capitalist reality with a utopian vission. Of course capitalism came out poorly. Nothing is going to compete well with utopia. Unfortunately after the revolution there was no real vlid comparisons. The Bolheviks and Stalin closed off the Soviet Union and perpetuated a propaganda campaign about a country full of happy workers and peasants. With the NKVD effectively sealing off the country it even worked while 5 million Ukranian peasants were starved to death during collectivization. And Western intelectuals like Camus and Sarte willing to explain away Stalinist terror and the Gulag. It was not until after World War II that real comparisons began to take place. First we see Communist Eastern Europe fail in comprison to the dynamic Western European economes and their economic miracles. Divided Germany and Korea were a case in point. Then the newly devloping countries appearing with decolonization and adopting socialist policies proved to be one economic failure after anoher. Finally the failure of socialism became to obvious to totally ignore. First it was the Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) whose economies took off with they adopted market reforms (capitalism). And then then of all places, Communist China went capitalist (at least partially capitalist) after Mao and the economy took off. India also adopted market reforms. And in only a little more than a generation a billion people were thrust from abject povety to the prosperous middle class -- the greatest creation of wealth in human history. Countries that failed to adopt capitalism were as Marx described, relegated to the 'dustbin of history'. The Soviet Union collapsed (1981). And notice how there are no successes in Latin Amnerica comparable to what we are see in Asia. Socialist countries while projcting peace in their propganda proved very effective in devloping military power, but total failures at providing prosperous lives to their people.

Socialism and Mass Murder

Socialists and Socialist-inluenced liberals always claim the moral high ground in public policy debates. This is fascinating because the countries engaged in war, agression, and mass murder during the 20th century were all socialist countries: the Soviet Union, NAZI Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist China, North Korea, and Cambodia as well as many other Communist countries with smaller, but suzeable death counts. . The death toll attributes to these countries exceeds 150 million people. In addition to mass murder we have guags and forced labor camps where people were forced to work under inhumane conditions. .

Socialism and Coersion

European Social Democracy

Classroom Discussion

Classroom teachers, especially those in the social sciences in the West have a liberal mindset. We are not entirely sure hy that is. It may reflect their choice of profession, the desire to to do good. And it probably reflcts the left-wing attitudes of most university professors and their inability or unwillingness to honestly present many social issues. What ever the reason many if not most teachers have liberal ideas that commonly promote socialist policies abnd criticize capitalism. This is facinating because no here in our society is the failure of socilist policies and the effctiveness of capitalism more pparent than the school classroom. Children have a very finely honed, almost instinctual notice of fairness. They are very quick to question inequity. This actually is in our DBA. Studies of chimpnzies, for example, demonstrate a predisposition toward equitable treatment. This of course would predispose children and youth to a socialist point of view. But we would challnge any teacher in the higher primry, secondary, and university levels to conduct the following experiment. Tell the students that something is wring and he or she is going to correct the situation. Not all of the students are achieving the same results. We have some students failing with F's or just gettin by with Ds. That just is not fair or equitable. And then tll the students tht he has a solution for this inequitable situation -- grade distrubution. Take 10 points from the A students and 5 points from the B students. Those students might piotest, but justify that action because they came from families whjo parents were mosrly A and B students -- grade privlidge. This would bring nearly all of the students to the C lecel -- total and complete equality. Now most of the class would think that an absurd idea. But the important part of the experiment is the subsequent class room discussion. There are many issues to be considered, but by far the most important is the impact on learning. After all the output of a classroom is learning just as the output of a dactory is production. Would such a system promote learning? Would the F and D students study harder under such a system. Would the B and A students continue to work hard at their studies if theu knew thjat point were going to be taken away from them to give to stydents thst were not working hard at their studies. And does this explain why socialist economies fail and wgu all of the prosperous countries in the world, unless they sit on a pool of oil, are countries with core capitalist economies.

Sources

Heyck, Thomas William. The Peoples of the British IslesL: A New History from 1688 to 1870 ( Wadswort: Belmont, California, 1992), 415p.

Wenocur, Stanley. "The social welfare workers movement: A case study of new left hought in practice," The journal of Sociology & Social Welfare Vol. 3 (September 1974).

Created: 1:34 PM 12/21/2018
Last updated: 1:34 PM 12/21/2018