The socialist attitude

Perceptions of socialist attitudes tend to the negative, especially in the West. The assumptions may be of some sort of discrimination against creative enterprise nurtured in poverty-stricken populations. However, the socialistic slogan generally attributed to Karl Marx: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need may actually owe its origins to the 'right' - the moral teachings from religious discourse of times gone by! 

In response to the socialist attitude perceived in our posts on the London riots, a reader comments: 

In my opinion most people, who start life with very little, have a socialist attitude that says “those that have should give some of it to everyone else (me)”.

In societies used to outlooks of individualistic enterprise, the thought may conjure up visions of large groups of poor people feeding off other groups in parasitic existence.  The  socialist attitude would then appear to sponsor the maintenance of poverty, facilitating hooliganism and apathy to honest labour. 

The reader also writes: 

As people earn more and get a better standard of living and more possessions their opinion tends to move to the right and they then think “those who have a lot more than me should share it BUT I don’t think I should share what I have worked for with those who don’t work”.

In other words, with the gradual accumulation of personal possessions, people's interests also change, turning to self at the expense of society. I should think the larger a social organisation is, the more it needs to subscribe to certain socialistic values, if only to keep the collective together in harmony. People that live in society, rich and poor, have certain duties to the collective, in the same way that members of a family are responsible for its identity and organization. 

Democratic societies with formidable Diversity, like India for instance, have had to incorporate these values into their Constitution, assuring justice, liberty, equality and fraternity to all members within its fold. That means to carry the entirety forward to a new level of competence irrespective of caste, creed, colour and class. That also means to decrease divides between diverse social groups, and to fail to do so is to fail democracy. 

Psychologist Adler perceived the balance between social interest and self-interest, crucial for harmony. Since none can exist in isolation, people join with other people of similar background, employment, or status to form social groups. Groups co-exist with other groups, having interrelationships for the same reason, essentially to help themselves. 

Kronemyer explains:

“Social interest” … translates as “community feeling,” as opposed to one’s private interests or concerns. … If one has social interest then one evidences or enacts a “useful” style of life. If one does not have social interest then one is self-absorbed and is concerned only with one’s self. Such a style of life is “useless.”

With overt preoccupations with own wants and expectations, people desensitise to the needs of others in the same universe. In coping with the daily stresses of being in the world, they prefer to adopt the selfish style of living. It should be of no surprise then that within the prevailing sense of individualism in a rapidly complicating world, many more people believe that they alone should enjoy the fruits of labours. 

The concentrated devotion to owning more possessions, tilts the balance towards self-interest at the expense of social interest, and ultimately leads to the ethical bankruptcy witnessed in recent times. In many parts of the world, the powers-that-be as well as groups lower on the social hierarchy appears to thus lose their moral compass. 

In the community living of Christian apostles centuries earlier that the scriptures provide glimpses of, the so-called socialistic values seem to be upheld in their fair distribution among the ordinary people in society. In Acts 4, it says:

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common… There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.

It seems logical to infer therefore that, when individuals and groups share resources between them respectfully, neither question of resource control nor of unmet needs arise. True, the simplicity of the earlier times has been lost in the complexities of the present day. However, much of the change in people’s minds from then to now has been in negativity. Attitudes have not expanded to encompass Diversity, but have instead shrunk to in-groups, and competitive self-interest.

The Parable of the Bags of Gold (Matthew 25:14-30) provides insight into an effective process of harnessing abilities that could be relevant even today. It says:

Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

The master of the house in the parable was fully cognisant of the differential abilities of his employees. Present day wisdom might have advised investing all of his wealth in schemes guaranteeing maximum returns. But rather than simply boost the bottomline for himself alone, the man in power opted to provide opportunity to all his workers in accordance to their individual abilities, and share the proceeds of their work with them. 

The point is the socialist attitude does not demand doles, but exhorts those blessed with privilege to talent manage those less fortunate. Over the centuries of their existence, the scriptures have taught no different. On his return from the journey, the master in the parable rewarded each person proportionate to the labour they put in. The man that not only did no work, he further justified his action with presumptions that the employer's profit sources were dubious, got not reward but punishment for his brand of selfishness. 

In the context of the riots in London, criminal activity should indeed be dealt with in accordance to law. However, the punishments should fit the crimes. Prejudicial judgements, concerned solely with exercising power, usher in retribution, not justice. The organizational machinery has the positional clout to to make development happen; they perhaps need the will to bring outlying groups into mainstream. 

Similarly, to help others help them achieve their targets, it behoves businesses to also invest in social development; however very few do. When focused on the bottomline, corporate bodies tend to become insensitive to both people and environment. In the drive for immediate gains, they refuse to consider the future effects of depletion of natural resources. They forget that they are dependent on people within and outside the company for their survival; profit making is a distant dream unless goods and services are sold and bought.

In earlier posts on this site, on the effects of businesses reneging on their corporate social responsibility (CSR), we wrote:

The abuse of resources by production and manufacturing houses, like the indiscriminate release of industrial wastes into rivers, toxic gases polluting the air and thinning the ozone layer, have been implicated in global warming, changing climate patterns and new diseases. Indiscriminate hunting has also endangered many animal species … Multinational corporations (MNCs) have at opportunity, flouted human rights and environmental concerns in developing nations… 

Perhaps prophetically, we also wrote about a year ago, that:

Business and political compulsions have created the “conflicts” that divide people. The single-minded pursuit of advantage has retarded healthy development in human relations. It has instead borne bitter fruit – us-and-them polarizations on the basis of race, religion and culture, and vengeful reactivity. The privileged have grown richer and greedier while the poor, more disadvantaged and resentful. The accumulated negativity displays in their eagerness to embrace any cause that advocates the removal of perceived “inequalities” through violence.

In the present context of the outpouring of reactive violence, it seems clear that social interest has all but died as ethical bankruptcy becomes socially generalized. The connivance of corporate and political circles accentuates divides creating polarized groups of haves and have-nots in terms of privilege and opportunity. 

The unhealthy competition for resources raises inter-group tensions, mistrust and perceptions of social inequality. Leaders in democracies need to resurrect the values of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity in social dealings. If they are to forestall the growing disgruntlement spiralling into anarchy, they need to encourage citizenship amongst all groups of society, political, corporate and others. 

References for this post: 

1. “Chapter 4. Life in the Christian Community” usccb.org 

2. Kronemyer, David. “Alfred Adler’s Concept of “Social Interest”” phenomenologicalpsychology.com. Phenomenological Psychology. October 3rd 2009. 

3. The Diva. “CSR 3: The exercise of domination” thedivaatlarge.blogspot.com. TheDivaAtLarge. February 26, 2010. 

4. “The Parable of the Bags of Gold” biblegateway.com. BibleGateway.com.