Americans on Socialism

Hey everyone,

One of the hardest cultural gaps to bridge, in my opinion, has been about economics. In America, free-market capitalism is not just an economic system; it's linked with cultural identity, personal identity, and some of what Americans consider the most fundamental values, like self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and a strong work ethic. Some of our founding myths--rags-to-riches stories (all the way back to Horatio Alger), the American Dream (even before J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur), and even the melting pot--are built on a free market economic model. While capitalism definitely has its flaws--we all hate poverty and the shrinking middle class, overconsumption, the inability to disconnect from work, a terrible health care system, etc.--ideas of a welfare state, or living off of handouts, or enabling, or--worst of all--not encouraging healthy competition sound just as frightening.

So it's hard for some Americans, at least it was for me, to adapt to a country where the Socialist Party is first runner up, and where you don't have to worry about having an FBI (or whatever the French intelligence agency is) open up a file on you if you join the Communist Party.

I read this great article on the New York Times called "Going Dutch" by Russel Shorto. He explains all this very well, for audiences on both sides of the pond: why do Americans have such a visceral distaste for socialism, and why socialism--at least in some forms, to some degree--is actually great. I agree, too, with the criticisms he makes of the more socialized state in the Netherlands (similar in some ways to France). If you can make it through the five-page article, though, I think it's well worth it, for Americans and Europeans.

I was speaking with a French girl last week at a conference, and we began discussing the differences between teaching in America and in France. This led to a discussion of the competitive exams in France compared to job interviews in the States. I made the mistake of saying, "You have to know how to sell yourself over there." To me, this seems like a positive thing: knowing how to communicate and to put your best foot forward are important and worthy skills. She heard it as dehumanizing, objectifying; capitalism is, as she saw it, a modern form of slavery, where very few control very many. We went on to discuss the structures of higher education, and then secondary education; public schools vs. private; work ethic; health care; and so on. The problem: Everyone should have equal opportunity, but that's never the case, because of neighborhood, educational, ethnic, gender differences. How do you solve the problem? I asked about Affirmative Action (which the French and English call Positive Discrimination, if it gives you an idea), but that, she said, doesn't get to the root of the problem: you have to support the entire population, give those who need it a real leg up financially, so they have the same chance to pursue a better life. I felt that government aid without helping to place kids in better schools would create dependency, a crutch. She thought it was classist of me to see it that way. She may have been right.

The great point was, though, that from a simple question about how to become a teacher in France and in the U.S., we ended up debating the fundamental meanings and differences between the American self-reliant individual and the French solidarité and l'état providence. So often these days, it seems like nearly all the cultural differences--political, interpersonal, environmental, even religious (think of that Protestant Work Ethic and Weber)--are somehow tied up with economy.