Good evening! (or morning, afternoon, etc. depending on where in this world you are...)
So, I hope you've all been well! I was just doing a bit of work when it hit me that I hadn't blogged in so long, (slap on the wrist!), so it seemed appropriate to do so now. This post is fairly linked in to something I was researching as part of the work I was doing, but it seems important. Something that definitely needs more awareness raised.
The title of the post gives it away: what do we owe to socialism?
Enjoy!
Every single
one of us at some point has benefited from the principles of the National
Health Service, free at the point of use as a Human Right. The free market
capitalist economy of the United States has 40 million people without access to
health care, and the rest have to pay a great deal for it. We owe our health
care system to socialism.
Where did these socialist ideas come from though? Did they
come from some extremely benign, very wealthy person or were they the dreams of
people who saw their mothers dying in poverty, saw their wives dying in child
birth, or saw others suffering grievously because they could not afford the
medical care they so desperately needed? They wanted a communal system that
protected everybody from illness and disease. We owe the compassion prevalent in society to
socialism.
Today, some 21,000 children will die. This happens every day
though, around the world. And the statistic is rising. This is the equivalent
of one child dying every 4 seconds. This is the equivalent of 14 children dying
every minute. This is the equivalent of
the 2010 Haiti earthquake disaster occurring every 10 days. Some 92 million
children died between the years 2000 and 2010. That’s 7.6 million children a
year dead because of the silent killers. And what exactly are the silent
killers? Poverty. Hunger. Lack of medical care to treat easily preventable
diseases and illnesses. These statistics, believe it or not, affect us all. In
the UK, infant mortality is 10% higher for those in the lower social group than
the average. But, a different world is possible.
In 2012, (this is a particular example that touched me!), 17 year old Layla Smith would become a single
mother. She gave birth to a premature baby boy, who she’d go on to name Mark.
Layla was hospitalised for several weeks: as a young girl she was still growing
herself and needed help with her deprived nutrition intake and her smoking
addiction. As the health of her and her child improved, they were released from
hospital. However, in 2012, 3,000 babies died under the age of one. Baby Mark would be
one of these who perished as a result of the socio-economic deprivation. Even
if Mark and the other 2,999 babies who died alongside him that year had made
their 1st birthday, they still wouldn’t have had the same chances at
something as basic as living in comparison to those with a higher income. In
the poorer communities, the streets are not as safe, there would be nowhere
near and secure to play, but above all, the children would be discriminated
against in the education and health system. It’s evident that the system in
place today just isn’t working for everybody. But, a different world is
possible.
And we could go on to discuss many other things that are
profoundly socialist, such as access to food banks, such as the development of
council housing in the 1920s by the Labour Party particularly, but by those who
believed there should be decent housing for all. Surely this is more beneficial
than those who are presiding over an explosion of free market, privately rented
flats which now make up at least 1/6th of each parliamentary
constituency. People are therefore being socially cleansed by these high rents,
and by insufficient benefits and the refusal from the government to bring in
any form of rent control. Again, better quality housing leads to better
education achievements, leading to better health. There are many things that we
owe in our welfare state to the ideas of socialism.
And so, if we are therefore able to consider the moral case
of socialism, bearing in mind those people who of opposite ideologies will indoctrinate so you
believe there is something normal and natural in living in a society where the
dog eats dog, the poorest go to hell and the richest do well. This isn’t
normal. This isn’t natural. It could be said that in everybody, there is either
an ounce of socialism, a pound of socialism, or in many other cases, kilograms
of it. Socialism is surely about the kind of society you want to live in. Do
you want to live in a society where there is no public provision of any kind of
service? This being where there is only private provision, where the only thing
to worship is money and getting wealthy at the expense of others. Or do you
want to live in a society where there is universal health care, where there is
a protection against total destitution and poverty, where every child gets to
go to school? Because in many parts of the world, they don’t. I’m sure the
majority of us would rather live in a place where there is that distinct,
collective principal about it. We owe
the freedom we have to socialism.
I also think we should bear in mind the national environment
in which we live. We live in a free market society, to some extent in Britain
and to a great extent in the United States of America, and certainly in the
domination of the world’s multi-national companies and banks which is very,
very powerful indeed. Are they really caring about what happens to the
environment? Are they really caring about the level of exploitation of oil and
other mineral resources? Are they really caring about the damage they are doing
to the environment? It’s only if you live in a society and a set of principles
where you take from people what they can afford in order to give that to people
who need it. So, in other words, “from each according to their means to each
according to their needs” is surely a very sensible, very basic principle in
life. This different world is possible.
The point here is that if we want to survive on this planet,
we cannot go on polluting and exploiting at the rate we are. We cannot ruin our
environment, destroying an eco-system and expect to survive. If you live in a
free market society, a free market capitalist society, each piece of resource
with the ability to be used will be grabbed, with no thought spared to the
environmental damage done. A collective principal where we care for everybody
will spare this thought, where we care for everybody does give us that
opportunity to protect the natural environment. We owe the consideration for
the natural world to socialism.
If you want to live a decent world, is it then right that the
world’s economy is dominated by a group of unaccountable multi-national
corporations? They are the real power nowadays, not the nation’s state. It’s
the global corporations. And if you want to look at the victims of this free
market catastrophe that the world is faced with at the moment, visit the small
towns on the fringes of so many big cities around the world. Look at those
people. Migrants are dying in the Mediterranean, trying to get to Lampedusa.
Why are they there? Why are they dying? Why are they living in such poverty?
It’s when the World Bank arrives and tells them to privatise all services, to
sell off state-owned land, to make inequality apparent and a virtue. That is
what drives people away into danger and poverty. But, a different world is
possible.
I will conclude with this final thought: think about the
world you want to live in. Do you want the dog to eat the dog, or do you want
us to all collectively care for each other, support each other, and eliminate
poverty and injustice? A different world is possible.
I hope you all have a good 2016 too!
Best,
Sophie x