Somewhere along the line as I was learning that 6×7=42, the capital of Andorra is Andorra la Vella and the shortest distance between two people is a smile, I also got the idea that communism is bad.
I don’t think I ever had a parent, teacher or friend tell me this, but I picked it up nonetheless.
I suspect this is true for most people, except those who are products of the baby boom, who likely had parents, teachers and friends all telling them that communism is bad.
As I grew up, I heard many people point out that communism is “pretty good in theory,” but does not work in practice.
Because the policies did not work in Russia, Yugoslavia or East Germany, many assume they will not work anywhere.
Saying that communism is theoretically an acceptable system concedes that it would, indeed, be nice if everyone could live comfortably without having to worry about qualifying for health insurance or affording groceries.
Yet it also allows Americans to dismiss the entire system as one that is not plausible. Many suppose anything that sounds slightly socialistic to be bad for America.
This is not necessarily the case.
Perhaps the reason Karl Marx’s ideas have often failed is because they are taken as an entire system. Adopting certain aspects of socialism-or policies that some might consider aspects of socialism-would undoubtedly benefit millions of Americans. Case in point: universal health care.
The best movie I saw this summer-the one that made me laugh, made me cry, made me angry, made me even angrier and made me hopeful-was Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko.”
Although it claims it is not, it is the story of the 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance.
The film examines the health care systems in America, Canada, Great Britain, France and Cuba, finally determining that America is not the place to live if you are a hypochondriac.
Indeed, the United States is the only “developed” country in the world that does not have a universal health care system.
Certainly “because everyone else is doing it” is not a reason to adopt such a system.
People argue, among other things, that it would raise taxes and that it would result in a lower quality of care (a myth Moore disproves.) Though taxes would go up if such a system were instituted, people would probably end up paying less than they are now (huge sums of money would not go to the CEOs of HMOs.)
Probably the primary reason previous attempts to establish a national health care system have failed is because of the pressure insurance companies put on political figures to vote it down.
But the aversion many individual Americans have to national health care likely stems from its perceived connection to socialism.
Adopting a system of “socialized medicine,” however, is not the same as carrying around a little red book and will not ensure a proletarian revolution.
Shooting down this idea because of the political or economic system with which it could be affiliated is not only poor decision-making, but may be harmful to our society and people, or at least 47 million of them.