History after the Cold War (final installment in my history series)

Karl Marx insisted that history is shaped by economics and by conflict between classes. He predicted a revolution led by working classes, beginning in those countries where the Industrial Revolution had begun and spreading through the entire world, first creating a socialist economy managed by the government, then followed by a communist economy in which social classes had been abolished and the government had withered and disappeared.

Marx’ predictions did not come true. Highly industrialized countries preserved capitalism by placing some regulations on industry and production, by allowing workers to be represented through labor unions, and by raising the standard of living of all people—working class as well as ruling class—so the desire for revolutionary change was diminished. Marxism was attempted in less industrialized nations, beginning with Russia, spreading to China and other east Asian countries, and also appearing in Cuba, Ethiopia, and other so-called “third world” countries. In the 1980s, China abandoned its socialist economy and returned to capitalism, and in 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed. As a historian and an economist, Marx was revealed to be a failure.

Ironically, many historians continue to view the world with Marxist ideas and Marxist terms. Great emphasis is still placed upon the distinction between classes. Marxist terms—such as capitalism, socialism, and communism—are still widely used. The end of the Cold War revealed the failure of Marxist thought, yet historians often view the years following the Cold War through the lens of economic struggle and the disparity of wealth.

One key term used to discuss the world since the end of the Cold War is “globalization.” The economies of various countries and civilizations are so intertwined that a change in one part of the world affects the rest of the world as well. The spread of industrialization has linked the nations of the world in such a way that military and political power seem less relevant than they were before and economic success seems to be the most important way of measuring a country’s power and influence in the world. The importance of globalization was illustrated by an adage that was true until 2008: “There has never been a war between two countries that both had McDonald’s restaurants.” (Vladimir Putin’s Russia ended that interesting truth when it invaded the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.)

People worried about globalization point to the homogenization of culture around the world. McDonald’s and Walmart and Disney reach into the lives of people everywhere in the world, and they are the same wherever they are found. Remnants of indigenous cultures sometimes are swallowed up by the spread of this overwhelming culture. Critics of globalization worry about pollution, especially in countries trying to catch up to Europe and North America’s industrial successes. They worry about the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few successful inventors and marketers. They worry about government being replaced by a hidden conspiracy of wealthy plutocrats who decide what will happen in the world without being held accountable for the results of their decisions.

Globalization also brings many benefits to people around the world. Awareness of events elsewhere in the world is higher than ever before. People experience other cultures without leaving their hometowns: they watch movies set in other lands, they hear music representing other cultures, and they eat food from many different cultures. Many jobs rely on the fact that items produced in one place are transported and sold in many other places. Political leaders hesitate to begin wars because they measure the cost of warfare, not only to their own governments, but to the economic exchanges that benefit their systems and provide tax revenue to their governments.

In Europe, the Benelux trade cooperation expanded into the Common Market, which then became the European Economic Community. Similar trade agreements were made in other parts of the world including the North American Free Trade Agreement, which linked the economy of the United States with those of Canada and Mexico. Trade agreements had several benefits: they increased jobs, they provided more products for consumers, they lessened the likelihood of wars, and they offered opportunities for some governments to shape the values of their neighbors regarding environmental concerns, education, working conditions, and other issues.

If the Era of Globalization began around 1990 with the end of the Cold War, then it perhaps came to an end around 2015 when powerful countries began to back away from full-scale globalization. First the voters of the United Kingdom chose to end their country’s participation in the European Economic Community. The next year, voters of the United States elected Donald Trump, a President who vowed to “make America great again” by cutting back on trade agreements and focusing on government policies that favored American workers and investors. Putin’s Russia also seems to have backed away from globalization, as his government has used military force to threaten its neighbors, trying to reestablish Russian hegemony in that part of the world. The attempts of President Biden and other leaders to stifle Russian expansion through economic sanctions strikes many observers as weak and ineffective. Military power and deterrence (having enough military strength to prevent aggressive behavior on the part of other nations) are still important in 2022; history still is not shaped by economic factors alone.

What new Era will follow the Era of Globalization? Answers are not yet available. Older objectives—including nationalism and the drive for freedom—continue to be important to many, perhaps most, of the world’s citizens. Religion also has not disappeared, as historians have been predicting ever since the so-called Enlightenment of the seventeenth century. This final truth allows Christians to say with confidence that the world still belongs to God and that His plans still outweigh all the schemes and efforts of mere mortals, even the most powerful among us. J.

The Cold War in Asia

When the Qing Dynasty was overthrown and the Republic of China took its place in 1912, the Nationalist Party of Sun Yat-sen had to face several competing forces for control of the country. Among those was a Communist movement, assisted by the Soviet Union. At first, the Communists were but a small threat to the Nationalists. The famous Long March of the Communists in 1934 and 1935 was essentially a series of retreats from the forces of the Republic. During that time, the Communists became a more cohesive unit and began to recognize the leadership potential of Mao Zedong. But when Japan invaded China, starting the Second World War, Nationalists and Communists settled their differences and fought the Japanese. During the years of the war against Japan, the Communist army made many friends for itself across the land. They gained a reputation of strength, courage, and helpfulness. Within four years of the end of World War II, Mao and the Communists had gained control of twenty-one of the twenty-two provinces of China. The Nationalists, now led by Chiang Kai-shek, fled to the twenty-second province, the island of Taiwan. That island had belonged to Japan from 1895 until 1945, when it was returned to China. From 1949 through the present and the foreseeable future, both governments—the People’s Republic of China in twenty-one provinces and the Republic of China in the twenty-second—have insisted that the true China has only one government, that some citizens are in revolt against that government, and that China will one day be reunited under its proper government. Their only difference concerns which of them is the proper government for all of China.

Mao’s success in China was embarrassing to the United States, which had just witnessed the creation of the Iron Curtain in Europe. Opponents of Truman’s administration stood in Congress to ask, “Who lost China?” The United States and its allies resolved to contain communism, to let no more nations fall to the opposition in the Cold War. When Kim Il-sung launched an invasion from North Korea, seeking to unite all of Korea under his Communist government, the United States led an international force, sponsored by the United Nations, to turn back the invasion. At the time, many governments of the Free World assumed that the invasion was sponsored by the Soviets, but they did little to help Kim’s invasion, either militarily or in the United Nations. Instead, as his forces were thrown back across the border by the USA-led forces, Communist China sent thousands of its forces to support North Korea. After several years of fighting, remembered in a famous television show that lasted four times as long as the war it portrayed, a settlement was reached which left the border between North and South Korea where it had been established in 1945.

Meanwhile, Communists were also involved in the French colony of Indochina. The British were relatively successful, after the World Wars, granting freedom to their colonies in Asia and Africa. The French did far less to prepare their overseas colonies for independence. Several groups fought the French in Indochina, including a Communist group led by Ho Chi Minh. After the French army had been embarrassed on the battlefield in Vietnam, they agreed to withdraw and to recognize four nations. They gave independence to Cambodia and Laos, and they also created a North and South Vietnam, divided as Germany and Korea had been divided. One million Vietnamese citizens fled south to escape the Communists led by Ho. These refugees created greater stress on the already weak government in South Vietnam. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy provided military assistance to South Vietnam, which was thrown into greater turmoil by the assassination of its President in November of 1963. To keep the Communists contained, President Johnson had to vastly increase the military presence of the USA in South Vietnam. Since the United States had not supported French and British interests in west Asia in 1956, America’s European allies offered no hope to America in east Asia in the 1960s. By 1968, the American military presence in South Vietnam had grown to half a million soldiers.

President Nixon was elected that year, in part because he had a plan to end the Vietnam War. His plan involved several components. His government negotiated with the North Vietnamese in Paris—first secretly; later in the open. American troops were gradually withdrawn from east Asia as the South Vietnamese Army became better trained to face the communist enemy. Nixon also authorized attacks upon the North Vietnamese where they established military bases and trails in Cambodia and Laos. Most significant, Nixon undermined the North Vietnamese support from their allies in the Soviet Union and in China. Nixon’s historic visit to China in February 1972, and an equally eventful visit to the Soviet Union later that year, contributed to a resolution to the war in Vietnam, while also accomplishing many other objectives of the American President.

For three years, negotiations with North Vietnam remained at a standstill. In 1972, following Nixon’s journeys and seeing the likelihood of his reelection, the North Vietnamese began to negotiate more sincerely. In autumn they had nearly settled their disputes; then the North Vietnamese began to reverse their progress. Nixon ordered bombing of North Vietnam and mining of its harbors at the end of 1972. Such actions had sped negotiating progress earlier in the year, and they worked again. In January 1973, the United States and North Vietnam ended hostilities. American prisoners of war were sent home. Had the terms of the treaty been enforced, South Vietnam would have remained free. But Congress denied funding to Presidents Nixon and Ford for support of the treaty. When North Vietnam saw that it could violate the treaty with impunity, it gathered its strength. In 1975, it boldly invaded and captured South Vietnam, uniting the nation under its Communist government.

Meanwhile, Mao tried to maintain his hold in China by keeping the entire nation in a state of crisis. His Great Leap Forward in the 1950s and his Cultural Revolution in the 1960s devastated China as much as any war could do. President Nixon’s visit helped the rising generation of Chinese leaders to plan for the future. In the 1980s, several years after Mao died, the Chinese government renounced socialism and established a free-market economy. Though they kept the name “Communist” and continued to hold totalitarian control of China, they abandoned the Marxist dream of socialism leading to a Communist paradise. In the 1990s, the Communist government of Vietnam followed the same path.

Free-market economies flourished in east Asia. Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea all prospered during the Cold War. In south Asia, history followed a different course. The people of India had been seeking independence from Britain for decades. When independence was granted after World War II, it came at a cost. India was divided into two nations—two pieces, called Pakistan, where Islam was in the majority; and the large piece in between, called India, where the Hindu religion prevailed. These two governments remained hostile to each other throughout the Cold War. Both flirted with the world powers—the USA and the USSR—while claiming to be unaligned with either side. In 1971, East Pakistan declared independence, making itself the country called Bangladesh.  India supported this move. On this occasion, as on many others, violence between India and Pakistan threatened to break into open war. Since both countries have developed nuclear bombs, war between them is inadvisable.

Because division of countries seemed so successful in Germany, Korea, and India/Pakistan, the British tried the same course of action in west Asia. They granted independence to Israel, a Jewish nation, and to Palestine, a Muslim nation. The Muslim neighbors of Israel immediately went to war, and Israel had to capture portions of Palestine to survive; the rest of Palestine was swallowed by Jordan. The next decade saw violence in west Asia again, including the matter of the Suez Canal. Once again, Israel prevailed against its neighbors. In 1967, the Six-Day War again favored Israel, as it captured land from Syria, Jordan, and Egypt while defending itself from attack. The 1973 war against Israel came closer to destroying the Jewish homeland. President Nixon authorized an airlift of supplies that turned the tide for Israel against its neighbors. This led to an economic crisis for the United States, as Muslim oil-producing nations first boycotted the USA, then sold oil at greatly-increased prices. Israel has survived further violence, and has sought ways to create a home for Muslim Palestinians without allowing them to threaten Israel’s continued survival. (The other option, making the Palestinians voting citizens of Israel, could overthrow the Jewish government at the ballot box.) Many of Israel’s Muslim neighbors have given up on military attacks and have instead tried to negotiate agreements with Israel, generally producing success for both sides.

During the Cold War, both the USSR and the USA viewed violence in west Asia as part of the world-wide struggle between freedom and communism. When the United States supported Israel, the Soviet Union made some friends in the Muslim world, particularly in Syria and Egypt. Other countries, including the Shah’s Iran and the Saud family’s Arabia, were strong friends of the United States. When opposition to the Shah grew in Iran during the 1970s, many American leaders assumed that the Soviet Union was behind the trouble. To their surprise, when the Shah was overthrown, the new government was hostile toward both the USA and the USSR. Meanwhile, after the 1973, President Sadat of Egypt send his Soviet advisors home and welcomed the United States as partners. A Soviet-sponsored government arose in Afghanistan, and the United States helped to equip and train opposition to that government. Once again, the United States assumed that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The Soviets left Afghanistan and eventually lost power over Russia and the other Soviet Republics, but the leaders in Afghanistan did not consider the United States a friend. After the Cold War ended, those same forces the Americans had trained and equipped would engineer the most devastating attack upon the United States since the end of the Civil War. J.

The Cold War

The Cold War was an inevitable confrontation, not merely between two powerful governments, but between two contrasting ways of life. The Russian Revolution, beginning in 1917 during the Great War, produced the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or Soviet Union. Founded upon theories from Karl Marx regarding history and economics, the Soviet movement adopted the label “Communist” to describe its aspirations of a world without government, politics, or religion, a world where people shared their labor and their wealth, “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” Contrasted to that view was an ideology that developed out of the Enlightenment principles of human rights, equality, and freedom. Epitomized by the United States of America (USA), this ideology advocated economic freedom, democracy, limited government, and human progress as guided by science and education. In contrast to the Marxist view of Communism, the older ideology described itself as “the free world,” but was derided by the oppositions as “Capitalism.”

When Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt met at Yalta in February 1945, they knew that the totalitarian governments in Germany, Italy, and Japan would be overthrown by their alliance. These three leaders agreed that new governments would be set up in conquered and liberated lands by whichever power first arrived in those lands in the course of the war. Because of that agreement, Soviet-style governments were put in place in East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, and North Korea. Enlightenment-style governments were established or maintained in West Germany, France, Italy, South Korea, and Japan, as well as Scandinavia, north Africa, west Asia, and the south Pacific. Churchill aptly spoke of an Iron Curtain that divided Europe during the Cold War. The United States helped form a military alliance called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for mutual support among its allies; the Soviet Union responded with the Warsaw Pact for its allies. The United States also provided an economic program, the Marshall Plan, to offer short-term aid to the populations of war-stricken areas combined with long-term help to rebuild their economies, industries, and cities. Warsaw Pact nations refused help from the Marshall Plan, but West Germany and Japan became economic powers through the investment and support of the USA.

Ironically, Berlin became a symbol of the Cold War and of the opposing views of economics, politics, and governmental systems. The city was surrounded by Soviet-sponsored East Germany, but it was divided among the conquering allies (USA, USSR, United Kingdom, and France). The Communists blockaded West Berlin in 1948, hoping to take control of the entire city. Instead, the USA and the United Kingdom risked military confrontation with an airlift of supplies to West Berlin. Eventually, the Communists backed down and again allowed travel by land from West Germany to West Berlin. As Germans continued to escape from the Communist bloc to the free world by means of West Berlin, the Communists decided in 1961 to erect a wall, dividing free Berlin from Communist Berlin. This wall became a symbol, addressed by Presidents of the USA from Kennedy to Reagan. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was the beginning of the end of the Cold War. It signaled the failure of Communism to win the hearts and minds of people under its control.

Berlin was not the only place where people “voted with their feet” between the two economic/political systems. When Vietnam was divided into a Communist North and non-Communist South in 1954, about 90,000 Vietnamese people chose to move to the North, but more than ten times as many people—at least one million—chose to move to the South. People fled Communist Cuba, both when Fidel Castro came to power in 1959 and again twenty years later when he gave permission for the discontent to leave Cuba and about 135,000 Cubans left for the United States. By 1991, when the Soviet Union disbanded, clear historical evidence was available to anyone who could see that the totalitarian and socialist policies of the USSR and its allies were both ineffective and unpopular, while the capitalist free world retained the support of its citizens and was also the dream and hope of people locked outside its borders.

The strongest image of the difference was visible in east Asia. Free economies boomed in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. By comparison, Communist economies lagged and struggled in North Korea, Vietnam, and the Peoples’ Republic of China. In the 1980s, even before the Cold War ended, China turned its back upon socialism and reintroduced a capital economy more like that of the free world (although it has maintained a totalitarian government until the present time). Other countries that experimented with socialism in the late twentieth century, whether Marxist socialism or that of other models, also found that the cost of a socialist economy vastly outweighed its expected benefits within a few years of implementation.

Life was not carefree and rosy in the free world during the Cold War. The USA and its allies often supported dictators in other nations merely because they were not Communists. They helped dictators against political opponents with the assumption that the enemy of our friends must be an enemy—and therefore Communist. Trying to contain Communism involved the United States in wars in Korea and Vietnam. Cold War perspectives blinded leaders in the USA to complex historical and political realities in other places—especially western Asia, given the growth of Muslim political self-awareness and opposition to the state of Israel. Even inside the United States freedoms were curtailed because of fear that some citizens might be Communist sympathizers. A more detailed look at the nuances of that time shows mistakes that were made. In spite of those mistakes, the free world prevailed against the Communist world in the Cold War, not because it was richer or stronger, but because its ideas were better. J.

The Victorian Age, part two

The Victorian Age was, in some ways, an idyllic time in human history. Science and technology were providing many benefits, including improving nutrition and health. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was finally being preached in all nations. Courtesy and good manners were routine.  Fine arts were available to more people than ever before, from museums and public libraries to pianos in the average home. The average standard of living was improving. Hope was widespread that, in a few more generations, war and poverty and disease would be abolished around the world.

But the Victorian Age had a dark side. Part of that dark side was racism. Many educated Europeans interpreted Darwin’s theory of evolution, survival of the fittest, to mean that some humans are fitter than others and should rule over others. Even as slavery was abolished, a new wave of colonialism put much of the world under European control. Otto von Bismarck hosted a meeting in Berlin in which representatives of European nations divided Africa among themselves, leaving independence only to the Kingdom of Ethiopia and to Liberia—a country created by the United States to contain former slaves. India, Indochina, and Indonesia were similarly claimed by European powers, while native governments in Siam and China were tolerated so long as they did not interfere with European interests. Indeed, before Victoria became queen, the British had already fought a war in China to maintain their right to sell opium to Chinese people. (Imagine Mexico fighting and winning a war with the United States to guarantee the right of Mexican citizens to sell illegal drugs in the USA!)

The British spoke of the “white man’s burden” to provide “civilization” to the darker-skinned people of the world. While the British were willing to grant self-government to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (all populated and controlled by people of European ancestry), they delayed indefinitely the same sort of freedom to India and to other colonies in the British Empire. In 1857, the British interpreted a series of local protests in various parts of India as wide-scale rebellion, and the British used military might to increase their control of southern Asia. In the United States, jobs were provided for freed slaves and for immigrants from Asia and Europe, but every new wave of workers was viewed with suspicion and dread. American cities were divided into neighborhoods of various cultures—Irish, German, Italian, Swedish, Polish, eastern European, Chinese, black, Jewish—and members of each culture stuck to their own kind.

Industrialization created problems of pollution and of an impoverished working class. In theory, capitalism provided relief by promising that the best workers would receive the highest wages and best working conditions, forcing employers to treat their workers well. Government regulations also helped to prevent abuse in the workplace. Among the most important regulations was recognition of labor unions—groups of workers united to negotiate wages and working conditions with their employers. Meanwhile, voting rights were granted to a larger segment of society, giving common workers power to elect government officials who would protect their rights and provide relief to their grievances.

During the Victorian Age, many intellectuals anticipated further changes in society that would eliminate the problems of industrialization. These changes were all called “socialism,” although they were not all the same. Some socialists created small communities where people who worked together also profited together, sharing the benefits of their labor and supporting their neighbors in the community. In some cases, these communities became the property of the business owners, who also ran the company store, the schools, the municipal government, and even the churches. Other socialists envisioned new communities in which families would each have a private apartment for sleeping but would eat together in cafeterias and share public transportation between their dwellings and their workplaces or schools. One group, called the Fabian Society, predicted and encouraged small and gradual changes aimed at a new socialist world. Others, including Karl Marx, predicted and encouraged sudden violent changes in which workers rebelled against business owners and their partners, the government leaders and church workers. The workers would take control of society, have the government run businesses for a while (socialism), and then allow the government to wither and die while people shared the benefits of their work—“from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.”

Japan began the Victorian Age as a nation closed to the world, carefully limiting the number of people who could enter Japan from other countries or who could leave Japan to visit other countries. This practice ended when an American gunship threatened violence unless Japan would sign a “Treaty of Friendship.” This embarrassment overturned the Japanese government, and the new leaders toured Europe and North America to see what was working in the rest of the world. They brought modern ideas back to Japan—modern schools, modern military training and equipment, modern government with elected officials but also a centralized executive leader, and the best modern economic system (which was capitalism). The government built factories but quickly sold them to Japanese corporations. They improved the status of Japan so quickly that, by the beginning of the twentieth century, Japan was able to overcome China and even Russia in military confrontations.

Japan joined the party late, but the nation still benefited from the good things the Victorian Age offered. In the coming century, Japan would also experience some struggles from the dark side of the Victorian Age, a dark side that would first be felt in Europe. J.

Socialism, capitalism, and racism: part three–the last seventy years.

The aftermath of the Second World War found the United States in a new position in the world. Unquestionably, the nation was a superpower, no longer able to isolate itself from events happening on other continents. A second superpower, the Soviet Union, presented a different perspective on world politics and economics. The United States and its allies preferred democracy and capitalism; the Soviet Union and its allies held to totalitarianism and socialism, with the illusionary promise of communism down the road. Following a post-war recession, the economy of the United States flourished. New technology provided faster travel, faster communication, more information, more comforts and more luxuries, and new opportunities to explore the universe. New theories about education were tried in the schools. The ancient ideas of Socrates and Confucius—that people are good at heart and need merely to be taught how things work in the world—were applied to children in the classroom. By the end of the 1960s, authority was being widely questioned, countercultures were forming, and many Americans were eager for change.

Conspiracy theories also grew more common, and the Civil Rights movement was not immune to these theories. Some Americans—including J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI—saw the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movement as elements of a Communist anti-American conspiracy. Conversely, I’ve met people who consider the Civil Rights movement as part of a white conspiracy to destroy black communities just as they were beginning to achieve some measure of success after decades of struggle and growth.

The goals of the Civil Rights movement were and are appropriate: to provide equal opportunity for all citizens, regardless of culture or ethnic origin or of other inherent differences between individuals. The slave trade created inequity in the United States, and laws passed during the century after the end of slavery perpetuated that inequity. Confiscating and redistributing wealth was never going to make people equal; offering equal opportunity through education, assistance to the poor, and laws against discrimination were always the better path. Quotas in school enrollment and in hiring practices were controversial but were in some cases helpful to reduce cultural inequity. Desegregating schools to the point that students were bused from their homes and neighborhoods to distant school buildings was more controversial and less effective. Wealthier white families invested in private schools or moved to the suburbs. Many government programs instituted to combat poverty had negative effects—pulling apart families by granting more help to single mothers than to married parents, promoting students to higher grades while ignoring their failures to learn material usually required for promotion, and allowing some individuals and families to become dependent upon government funding rather than earned income. Some people took advantage of the system and its negative effects, while many others succeeded in spite of the system and its negative effects. Rhetoric of racism and deliberate discrimination was made socially unacceptable, and positive role models for blacks and other minorities were promoted in athletics, entertainment, and other fields.

Many activities of the Civil Rights movement were appropriate and beneficial: peaceful marches and protests, public speeches, sit-ins, and participation in political life all changed American society for the better. At times, though, the Civil Rights movement was used as an excuse for violence and destruction. From race riots in Birmingham, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles in the 1960s to the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020, violent behavior has marred calls for justice and equality. The victims of that violence were often black business owners succeeding within the framework of capitalism rather than white capitalists deliberately continuing an unfair system. Indeed, at times it appeared that demonstrators were more interested in destroying the success of their fellow minority members than they were in building strong communities for themselves and for future generations in American cities.

It is not surprising that citizens protesting racial inequity and injustice would favor a new economic system to replace capitalism in the United States. But capitalism was never the cause of inequity and injustice. Socialism cannot keep its promises of better lives for all people or for most people. Socialism, as much as capitalism, would put power in the hands of decision-makers who might be honest and fair or who might be dishonest, prejudiced, and inclined to discriminate against minorities. Replacing capitalist investors with government bureaucrats cannot end injustice. Allowing the government to control prices, salaries, and decisions about production cannot make life fair for all people. Socialism consumes wealth, but capitalism creates wealth. Instead of redistributing wealth, socialism would distribute poverty; capitalism, on the other hand, offers a greater likelihood of increasing wealth for all citizens.

Historically, socialism has been tested and has failed. Over the years, people have fled socialist countries in search of freedom and opportunity. For the United States, winner of the Cold War, to strive thirty years later to adopt the failed policies of its defeated opponents would be laughable were the risks of such a change not so profound. For this reason, informed citizens need to continue defending and explaining capitalism, doing our best to keep what is working in America while continuing to improve whatever faults and mistakes we perceive in America. J.

Socialism, capitalism, and racism: part two–one hundred years of unequal freedom

In the 1840s, French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw difficulties the United States would face dealing with a population of Africans surrounded by a dominant culture of Europeans. De Tocqueville did not prophesy the Civil War, but he realized that slavery would end in North America. He warned that the African population would not be easily assimilated into the European culture of the United States, anticipating that conflict between the two populations was inevitable.

With the election of Abraham Lincoln as President in 1860, some southern states seceded and formed a Confederacy. Northern states answered Lincoln’s call to go to war to preserve the Union. The Confederate states seceded to preserve their practice of slavery, as their own documents from the time reveal. Northern states went to war, not to free the slaves, but to keep the country united; even Lincoln said that he would accept the continuing presence of slavery if it would keep the nation undivided. His Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves—only the slaves held in the rebellious Confederate states. Only the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution ended slavery in the entire country, and that amendment was not passed until after the Civil War had ended.

Although the purchase and sale of slaves had operated until capitalistic practices, southern plantation owners perpetuated an economy that predated the rise of capitalism. After the war, they attempted to continue a feudal economy, treating the freed slaves as serfs who lived on white-owned land as sharecroppers and tenant farmers, leaving the white property owners in control of the political and social structure of the southern states. Northern reformers attempted to bring capitalism and equality to the south. They brought railroads, factories, and banks to the south. They established schools for black children and adults. They set up political systems that allowed black adults to vote, and some blacks were elected to positions in the local, county, and state governments. When this time of Reconstruction ended, the white power structure in the south reasserted their power. They instituted voting practices that kept black citizens away from the polls and prevented black candidates from being nominated. They reduced or eliminated black access to education. They used lynchings, race riots, and other crimes to terrorize the black population, keeping them under control of the same wealthy whites who had previously owned slaves.

National law, built upon the premise that all people are created equal and have certain human rights, allowed for the development of “separate but equal” benefits for white and black citizens. Schools were permitted to function, but taxes collected from white families funded schools for white children and taxes collected from black students funded schools for black children, perpetuating the poverty of black citizens and the predominance of white citizens. Businesses, medical care, and even train and bus transportation were segregated. Sometimes enforcement of the law bordered on the comic: a museum planation in Arkansas has preserved a doctor’s office which had separate entrances and separate waiting rooms for white and black patients but only a single room for treatment of all patients.

Many black workers traveled north, hoping for better opportunities in the big cities. Already those cities had traditions of separate neighborhoods for separate cultures—German, Swedish, Irish, Italian, Polish, and so on. Soon black neighborhoods were created, complete with black schools, black churches, and black businesses. Segregation, “separate but equal,” was as real in the north as it was in the south.

Would socialism have provided greater equality for white and black citizens at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century? Definitely not. Every step in that direction continued to separate white and black, giving greater benefits to the white. White labor unions, among other expectations, were intended to keep factories from replacing white workers with black workers. Roosevelt’s New Deal provided much more help to white workers and families than to black. One reason for the disparity was that local direction of government programs always fell into the hands of the same powerful families that had managed the economy before the war and after Reconstruction. They had no intention of offering true equality to their black neighbors under any economic theory.

During this “separate but equal” era, some American blacks found ways to succeed. Black labor unions were developed for industrial and for agricultural workers. Black businesses, following the principles of capitalism, brought services to black communities and wealth to black entrepreneurs in both north and south. Black banks, black insurance companies, and black social organizations grew. Black schools, including institutions of higher education, improved. Although many schools for blacks limited their education to vocational training, others offered broader education. Black writers and poets, black musicians, and black historians and philosophers all gained an audience among both black and white Americans.

During these years, the United States did not meet its high standards of “liberty and justice for all.” Life was unfair for black citizens, native Americans, and immigrants from Europe and Asia; poverty persisted among populations of every culture and nationality. Prejudice and discrimination were widely practiced against blacks, Chinese, eastern Europeans, Catholics, and Jews. Capitalism was not the problem; socialism would not have solved the divisions and inequalities of American society. But in the later half of the twentieth century, new ideas and new approaches would make greater efforts to provide Civil Rights to all citizens of the United States. J.

Socialism, capitalism, and racism: part one–the trans-Atlantic slave trade

Slavery has existed in the world since the earliest historical records were written. Some slaves were prisoners of war; others became slaves as punishments for crime or as a result of debts they could not repay. In most ancient civilizations, slaves had rights that were protected by law. Some slaves did agricultural work or household chores, but others held highly respectable positions—private tutors for children of the rich, managers of property, and financial advisors. Joseph, son of Jacob, was a slave in Egypt who managed his master’s property. The Roman philosopher Epictetus was also a slave.

Even before the trans-Atlantic slave trade began, Africans were bought by Muslim traders and were sold in Arabia, India, and China. Even today descendants of African slaves live in China. But the tragedy of the trans-Atlantic slave trade was caused by sugar addiction. Crusaders first encountered cane sugar in western Asia. (Sugar cane is native to the Indonesian islands, but it had been sold and consumed in India, Persia, and Arabia for centuries.) Europeans had some natural sweeteners—honey and fruits—but the pure sweetness of cane sugar captivated European tastes. More than cinnamon, nutmeg, or cloves, the spice called “sugar” was in great demand as Europeans sought Asian spices from the silk roads. Italian investors tried to cultivate sugar cane on Mediterranean islands, but the climate was wrong and the crops failed.

In the 1400s, Portuguese explorers and traders began to look for short cuts in the silk roads, ways to obtain valued items such as gold and spices while bypassing some of the middle steps. (Taxes from governments and profits from merchants heighted the costs of Asian goods in Europe, so naturally western Europeans wanted to create and pursue any shortcuts they could find.) Traveling down the coast of Africa, the Portuguese found African civilizations eager to trade, and among the commodities offered by these Africans were slaves—prisoners captured from nearby tribes during disputes over land and wealth. At the same time, the Portuguese discovered islands off the coast of Africa that were uninhabited and were ideal for cultivating sugar cane. The Portuguese traded for African slaves and used them to grow and harvest sugar cane. When other explorers happened upon the Caribbean islands, they again found land ideal for sugar cane, and slaves purchased in Africa were transported across the ocean to labor in fields from Spanish Florida south to Portuguese Brazil. Slaves were soon introduced into British colonies north of Florida as well.

The plantations and haciendas established by Spain and Portugal in the New World were not capitalist ventures. They belonged to an economic philosophy now called mercantilism. In mercantilism, thinkers assume that the wealth in the world is limited and stagnant—one individual or nation can become richer only as another becomes poorer. Wealth from the New World—precious metals, crops (including sugar, cotton, coffee, rubber, and tobacco), animal furs, and fish—was transported to the Old World to enrich governments in Europe. Capitalists from Great Britain and the Netherlands did engage in the slave trade. Their ships traveled in a triangle: they traded with the Africans, selling European commodities and buying slaves; they sold slaves in the western hemisphere and bought New World wealth; they sold materials from the New World in European ports and gained European commodities. With each sale, they made a profit, much of which was distributed among investors.

But emerging capitalism in Great Britain and the Netherlands was accompanied by an abolition movement, an insistence that all people—even Africans and native Americans—possess human rights and should not be treated as property. The Industrial Revolution, created and funded by capitalism, replaced human labor with machinery, reducing the need to enslave human workers. Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, followed by the United States the next year. All slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833. Compromises in the American government allowed slavery to persist in some states until the Civil War. Worldwide, slavery was not declared illegal in all countries until the 1960s.

Between 1500 and 1800, more Africans were introduced into the western hemisphere than Europeans. Sixteen million Africans (most of them sold by other Africans) were purchased in Africa and put in ships to be taken to the western hemisphere. Twelve million survived the trip and were sold as slaves. The death of four million Africans on those trading ships is one of the shameful facts about the slave trade—human beings were treated as an expendable commodity like any other crop. Treatment of slaves in the New World was a mixed package: some were treated with kindness and respect, but many were abused, tortured, and worked to death. Twenty-first century historians and moralists find it easy to condemn slavery and the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Dealing with the aftermath of those three hundred years is a different kettle of fish. J.

The freedom of free markets

Most human settlements are not self-sufficient. They produce some of the products that they use and need, but other raw materials and finished items must be brought from other places. Archaeological research into the earliest civilizations in Iraq, Egypt, and India reveal that materials and items were exchanged among those cultures. Trade has been part of human history for thousands of years.

Trade gives governments opportunities to raise money. Governments tax products that move, charging tolls for using roads and bridges and ports. Governments tax products when they are bought and sold. Governments place special taxes, called tariffs, upon products that come from other places. Tariffs accomplish more than offering income to governments. Tariffs sometimes discourage consumers from buying foreign products, encouraging them to buy the same products from local providers. Tariffs discourage the purchase of foreign products, even when local providers have no local substitute for the products in demand. Tariffs—and the threat of tariffs—can be used in negotiations between governments, even when the substance of those negotiations goes beyond trade and other economic considerations.

In the twentieth and twenty-first century, the United States government has inserted itself into trade arrangements and economic factors in several ways. Tariffs have been established on foreign goods to try to protect American jobs. Bans on export of certain items and technologies have been enforced to keep our Cold War enemies from gaining products that might help them defeat our nation. Assets of some nations and their citizens have been frozen and tourism to some countries has been curtailed to limit their economic success in efforts to change their governments’ policies. At the same time, trade agreements have made it easier for American products to be sold in other countries while products from those countries also were made available to customers in the United States.

Free trade benefits consumers, giving them more choices in the marketplace. Free trade benefits workers, giving more consumers access to their products. In the same way, free trade benefits corporations and the many investors who hold stock in those corporations. Free trade reduces strife between governments—until 2008 (when Russia invaded Georgia), there had never been a war or military confrontation between two nations that both had McDonald’s restaurants. To preserve free trade with its economic benefits, governments often will go to great efforts to resolve differences through diplomacy rather than through violence or threats of violence.

Yet free trade can cause problems for some participants. Sale of crops from one country in other countries can lower prices paid to farmers in those other countries. Underpaid factory workers in one country can produce products that are sold in other countries, reducing purchase of similar products in those other countries and possibly driving workers into unemployment. Aware of these risks, governments frequently work to create trade agreements that will benefit their own farmers and factory workers and also benefit their own consumers, seeking a balance between the competing needs of two groups which often overlap—auto workers who assemble cars, but who also want to buy the best car at the best price, no matter where it was made.

The chief concern is competition. But other factors deserve consideration. Laws in the United States provide workers with safe working environments and adequate wages while also prohibiting pollution of the air, land, and water. Countries lacking all those laws (or more permissive in their laws) can compete with the United States, producing products at a lower cost. Not only does this put American workers at risk of losing their jobs, but it also harms workers and residents in these other countries.

One new tariff might help to maintain the balance of keeping American workers at their jobs, providing affordable products to American consumers, and also helping the rest of the world’s consumers, workers, and residents. This tariff would require products—both agricultural and industrial—to pass an inspection established by the United States Congress. That inspection would ensure that work environments are safe, that workers are receiving an adequate wage, and that companies are not polluting the environment. A logo would be placed on the packaging of items that pass inspection; a tariff would be assessed on items that are not inspected or did not pass inspection. A higher, punitive, tariff would be assessed on any producer that used the logo without having passed inspection. Some American consumers would buy only products that have the “safe workplace” logo. Others might still seek the better bargain, but the tariff would bring the imported item more in line with American-made items in the competitive marketplace.

Free trade contributes to other freedoms. Governments still bear some responsibility to regulate trade for the good of consumers and also for the good of workers. A balance is not easy to achieve, but such a balance is desirable, and most of the world’s governments share an interest in finding that balance. J.

Socialism, totalitarianism, and the Cold War

In the aftermath of the Great War (that is, World War I) came the Great Depression. These combined perils caused the citizens of several countries to surrender their individual rights to their governments, hoping in return to obtain economic security, national pride, and protection from hostile forces within and beyond their countries’ borders. In Russia, Lenin’s Bolsheviks became Stalin’s Communist Party. In Italy, the Fascist Party rose under Mussolini; in Germany, the Nazi Party rose under Hitler. All three parties exercised totalitarianism, government control of the population that restricted freedom and human rights, controlled communication, and punished citizens who disagreed with the government’s policies.

Earlier dictators may have wished for totalitarian control of their countries, but twentieth century technology opened avenues to government power that had not previously existed. Governments could exercise total control over the printed word of newspapers, magazines, and books. They could exercise total control over spoken word of radio broadcasts. They could monitor private communication between citizens that used the postal service or the telephone. Rapid communication made control of schools easier than earlier times. Teachers were required to spread government propaganda in their classrooms and to report to the government any dissent represented among their students or noticed in the families of their students.

Stalin’s government was openly socialist—the official name of the country was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Hitler and Mussolini did not advocate socialist economies. Meanwhile, the United States government, led by Roosevelt’s Democratic Party, offered New Deal that increased government participation in the economy but did not directly threaten individual freedoms. Communication and education were not totally controlled by the government. Citizens were not arrested for openly disagreeing with government policies.

The Second World War defeated the Nazis and Fascists without overthrowing Stalin’s Communist Party. The Soviet Union was permitted to set up totalitarian governments and socialist economies in several nations, from Poland and East Germany to North Korea. Shortly thereafter, Mao’s Communist Party won control over most of China, establishing a government that was also totalitarian and socialist. The Cold War had begun. On one side of the Cold War stood totalitarian and socialist governments promising a Communist world when they had prevailed. On the other side stood democratic and capitalist governments promising a free world when they had prevailed. The rhetoric was more stark than the reality. Many allies of the United States maintained dictatorships rather than democracies, and some American allies in Europe experimented with socialist economies.

The “Communist” governments during the Cold War portrayed capitalists as a wealthy and powerful minority who crushed the majority of their fellow citizens, forcing them to work long hard hours for insufficient wages, forcing them to live in substandard housing with little medical care or hygiene, and denying them any real control of the political process that ran their lives. The “Free” governments during the Cold War portrayed communists as radical subversives, trying to overthrow the established order to take control, abolish religion, end all freedom, and enslave the entire world.

Democratic socialism and dictatorial capitalism were quietly ignored. Yet the stereotype of the “godless Communist,” as described by leaders in the “free world,” contained truth despite their exaggerations. During the decades of the Cold War, capitalist nations thrived while socialist nations struggled. As the standard of living rose in capitalist nations, so did individual freedoms. Dictatorships were replaced by democracies. Meanwhile, the totalitarian socialist governments regularly had to crush opposition with military force. People fled totalitarian socialist nations for free capitalist nations, forcing the former to build walls to contain their own people. Even China eventually chose to reestablish a capitalist economy, while remaining under control of a totalitarian government that still identified itself as the Communist Party.

Thirty years since the Cold War ended, its rhetoric and its reality continue to shape politics in the United States and around the world. American families who escaped totalitarian socialist governments in Poland, East Germany, China, Vietnam, and Cuba remain suspicious of politicians who speak well of socialism or who advocate greater government control of the American economy. Freedom, democracy, and capitalism remain linked in the minds of many people. Old pictures of capitalistic oppression, once fostered by the Soviet Union and its allies, are sometimes reiterated in political debate in the twenty-first century. Some American citizens, especially younger people born after the Cold War, sometimes forget why our side prevailed in that conflict. But advocates of socialism are rightly portrayed as isolated, huddling in the cold, bundled to resist reality while they continue to call for an economic system that has never worked.

Although democratic socialism exists as an option, it contains more threats to freedom than capitalism contains. Government control over prices and wages reduces freedom. Government decisions about which products to produce reduces freedom. As silly as it may seem, freedom to choose among dozens of brands of toothpaste or coffee or beer is far better than a single, mass-produced, government-controlled monopoly of toothpaste or coffee or beer. One free pair of shoes given each citizen once a year can never satisfy the human spirit as well as freedom to choose among many kinds of shoes, spending one’s own hard-earned money for the shoes one truly prefers.

The pendulum of politics swings to the left and then to the right. Free elections often reveal massive divisions of philosophy within a national population. True freedom allows both sides to state their case and invites voters to choose between them. Those who gain power cannot maintain their grasp indefinitely; the tighter they cling to power, the more it slips from between their fingers. Reversals happen, but the long course of history shows that freedom prevails over tyranny.  The future of America and of the world is bright, because free people will always work to remain free. J.

Education: right or privilege? (part two)

In the United States, educating children has been treated as necessary, delivering a right and not bestowing a privilege. Therefore, tax dollars are committed to operating public schools through the twelfth grade. Higher education at the college and university level, though, has been treated more as a privilege. Tuition and fees must be paid; not everyone expects to go to college in the United States.

In ancient times, teachers gathered a group of students or disciples and instructed them beyond the elementary levels. Jesus Christ had disciples, but so did John the Baptist and the Pharisees. For that matter, the Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, and many others gathered adults to teach them more than the basics they could learn from their parents or from the local teachers.

In the Middle Ages, medieval churches began to run universities, places where adults could gather to be instructed by experts in various topics. Such education was grounded in Christian theology, but it was sorted into the trivium of communication skills—grammar, logic, and rhetoric—and the quadrivium of scientific skills—arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. The universities did not compete in football or basketball, but they did compete in theological and philosophic debate. The Reformation of the Church was sparked by this practice of scholarly debate.

Forty years after the United States Congress set aside land for public schools in each township, Congress voted to dedicate two townships in each territory and incipient state as “seminary lands.” (The terms “academy,” “college,” “seminary,” and “university” were often used interchangeably at that time—many such schools taught only at the high school level.) The major universities of various states evolved from that legislation. State governments later provided additional land for competing schools, which is why State universities also exist, as well as some with regional names such as “northern” and “eastern” colleges or universities. Students at these schools were expected to pay tuition and other fees, although scholarships were soon established to support deserving students who could not afford higher education.

After World War II, the federal government helped veterans to take part in higher education by the G.I. Bill. Soon, other programs were developed, including Pell Grants and guaranteed student loans. Unfortunately, every time the government provided financial assistance to help more students, colleges and universities absorbed the wealth by increasing costs, so that the price of higher education rose much faster than the rate of inflation. At the same time, many more careers required at least a college diploma and often an advanced degree as well. In the nineteenth century, many physicians and lawyers and other professionals were self-taught or were mentored by practicing professionals. This path to a career is almost impossible for most Americans today.

The rising cost of higher education, paired with the increasing necessity of college education for many careers, has required many students to borrow money, loans that must be repaid once they have graduated or left college. These loans often make it difficult for young adults to accomplish the steps expected from people of their age—to find homes of their own, to marry and begin a family, to contribute to churches and charities and to the alumni funds of their schools. Some economists worry that a massive default on student loans could damage the American and world economies even more than the Recession of 2007, which was caused by a similar collapse in the housing industry.

Some American politicians want to make college education free for all Americans. A few even want to pay off the loans accrued by recent college graduates. The first problem with this approach is the source of the money to cover these costs. The United States government has already added massively to its debt with stimulus checks to counter the economic costs of the virus crisis and its quarantines. The second problem is the risk that schools will increase their costs even more as more money becomes available to them through government programs. Costs spiraling upwards have been a problem for fifty years; increased funding will not end the spiral. The third problem is that students unprepared for college will be enrolled. Colleges already struggle to meet the needs of students whose twelve grades of public education did not give them skills needed to succeed in college. Paying for every high school graduate to attend college can only increase that problem.

The federal government should continue Pell Grants and other programs that assist competent students from poor families to receive higher education. At the same time, the government should reward institutions of higher education that cut costs rather than throwing money at all the colleges and universities. Schools that take deliberate steps to lower education costs should be first in line for government research grants and other programs that offer money to higher education. Likewise, students who go into debt preparing for careers that benefit the general population deserve more help reducing or eliminating their debt than their classmates. Health professionals—especially those who treat low-income patients—deserve debt reduction and elimination. So do teachers, social workers, and other professionals in lower-paying jobs that benefit the community. Some programs that meet this description already exist. They should be improved and also better focused.

A liberal arts higher education exposes students to many facets of life—the fine arts, history, science, foreign languages, and the like. These classes are required in high school, and that should continue. Colleges and universities also should continue to provide these classes for all students. But many high school graduates (and even those who do not finish high school) are qualified for vocations that are necessary for their communities and that can provide an income comparable to those available to college graduates. We need plumbers, electricians, carpenters, car repair experts, hair specialists, cooks, and bakers. More encouragement and support can be given to students preparing for these professions, rather than expecting every young American to enroll in college and have the government pay their bills.

If higher education were purely a privilege, then only wealthy students could go to college. Effort must continue to find ways of educating young men and women from poorer families who possess strong academic skills. The cost of higher education has been artificially raised in the United States over the past fifty years; this trend needs to be reversed rather than continued. Promising free college for all is the wrong answer. Better solutions are available. J.