While looking through yesterday's newspaper coverage of the 'historic vote' on healthcare reform in the United States I saw a photo of some protestors outside the Capitol. Some of the protestors had signs with the message "In America, We Don't Redistribute Wealth, We Earn It." This message frustrates me because it perpetuates a myth about the role of the government in the United States and its history as it relates to the redistribution of wealth in the US (the US government has been redistributing wealth since its founding). This message also implies other untruths, namely that all redistribution of wealth is inherently Marxist/Communist in intention and origin and certainly un-American in nature and essence.
This basic factual inaccuracy of the message is striking. Contrary to what is suggested by this sign, one of the activities that US governments (local, state, and federal) have engaged in most consistently over the 200-year plus history of the country is the redistribution of wealth through various forms of taxation. Whether the form of taxation is duty paid on goods, sales tax, income tax, or capital gains tax the general effect is to transfer funds to the state (in its various forms). These funds may be used in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, the payment of salaries of civil servants, the provision of a justice system, the provision of welfare services, or the maintenance of a military force. Schools, libraries, and the military (and the teachers, librarians, and soldiers that they employ) are institutions that have been particularly longstanding beneficiaries of this wealth.
The point is not that we need like such practices (or even accept the necessity of a government) but that we should at least understand that they are inherent, to a lesser or greater extent, to government (which requires some resources - even if they are only human). Even the most basic government, one that deals only with law making, the provision of a justice system, and the protection of its borders, requires some funds (raised through taxation), which it then distributes in fulfilling its duties. Whether we like it or not, governments acquire resources which they then redistribute.
Even funnier is that, arguably, the US was founded on claims relating to the support of Americans for redistribution of wealth. The phrase "no taxation without representation" did not suggest that the colonists did not accept taxation (and the consequent redistribution of wealth) but that they wanted a say in how this wealth was to be collected and redistributed. It was on this issue, the control of the redistribution of wealth, (among others) that the Revolutionary War was fought. And since before the introduction of the present American constitution American governments have been actively engaging in the hard-fought-for ability to redistribute wealth in accordance with the wishes of representatives elected by taxpayers
So to not understand that the US engages in the redistribution of wealth, and has since its founding, is to not understand either the history of the country or the functioning of modern government. To suggest it is un-American is another issue all together in that it suggests an ahistorical understanding of history that seems to associate this practice with other, less-well regarded (at least from the American perspective) political systems. The general systems to which these practices seem to be associated are the communist/Marxist systems that American governments have vilified (i.e. ‘the evil empire’ or the ‘red threat’) for years. Unfortunately, these connotations have meant that the public has not been able to engage in reasonable discussions about the redistribution of wealth in the US and the role that it has played since before the founding of the country.
To conclude, and to maybe take the point just a little too far; it might even be reasonable to argue that the redistribution of wealth is more American than apple pie in that the redistribution of wealth is so essential to the American state that without it there would not be an American state (or subsidies for the apple farmers).
4 comments:
The writer seems to have confused the idea of general taxation and subsequent governmental spending with "redistribution of wealth", as proposed by Karl Marx and later confirmed by President Obama (in his conversation with "Joe the Plumber" during the 2008 campaign). The fact that Karl Marx proposed the need for redistribution of wealth (later called 'communism') is why there is contemporary reference to both Marxism and Communism in the signage seen Sunday in the Washington protests.
"No taxation without representation" was merely a rallying cry not much different than "Change we can believe in". The Colonial's negotiating delegation sent to London prior to the Americans' Declaration of Independence went to England with specific instructions to NOT agree to anything that would satisfy the notion of taxation with representation because in any such arrangement, the colonies would have been placed in a position of permanent disadvantage, numerically, in Parliament. The real issue for the Colonials was taxation being imposed by King George's government, not the issue of representation at all.
There is no confusion, governmental taxation is a mechanism used to redistribute wealth. Taxation need not be a mechanism to distribute wealth based on Marxist principles, as it is quite clear that taxation pre-dates Marxism (and because there are non-Marxian variants of socialism). The point is that wealth can be, and has been, re-distributed without reference to Marx for many years in the US. Admittedly, these early taxation regimes were likely not thought of in terms of mechanisms of redistributing wealth (though that is quite clearly one aspect of what they were).
Marx did propose the redistribution of wealth, among other things. This was certainly not the only thing that he proposed, nor was he the first to have such ideas.
The commenter seems unable to look beyond his aversion of Marxism to really understand what is going on in this situation, which is that the United States government has been engaging in non-Marxist (the goal was not economic equality but a functioning government, or the provision of some level of social service) wealth redistribution for hundreds of years.
Whether or not they had already decided not to accept a position that would make them a permanent minority is not really the point. The point is that fight was about control of resources and property.
The point about the real issue being taxes imposed by the monarchical government just supports my point that control of the redistribution of wealth was the basis for the revolutionary war and the resulting US government. Thanks for providing me with an even stronger case.
Post a Comment