Why Socialism is Bad for Global Charity Works

There is quite a disturbing trend that has risen among college-aged people as the U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont has ushered in a trend of accepting and favoring of socialism among young American citizens. Now, it has long been true that college students were more disposed toward socialistic ideals. Yet, historically, the zeal for socialism is at its peak. Here, I argue against this new-found zeal for socialism on grounds that socialism or any form of statist ideologies is not conducive toward global charity works.

(It should quickly be noted that, in my economic view, the sets of policies that counts as a "statist ideology" in practice differ by countries for there are matters of practicalities to be considered, e.g. density of the population by sectors, population size of the country, geographic size of the country, GDP per capita, etc. Although we may hold conceptually what a statist ideology may be, no economic system will fit tightly into the concept unless we take practicalities of a system.)

     In pursuing global charity, it is of necessity that we should eliminate, or at least mitigate, practices of grave evils. Now, many may disagree between the conservative-liberal divide on what counts as evil. For example, many would surely be against me opposing abortion and legal redefining of marriage. But only those few who have deviant consciences would be in support of grave evils of systemic oppression of ethnic or religious groups and human trafficking.

     It is of no debate that, in order to improve the conditions, wealthier developed countries need to contribute in aiding the impoverished parts of the world. Now, there are two ways of going about this topic. One would obviously be foreign aid by countries. Another would be works done by NGOs and individual charity works.

     A socialist might say that, if a country gets more money from its citizens, it would consequently have more money to aid other countries in need, thereby benefiting the global community. This claim would of course assume that the bureaucracies of socialist (or statist) countries would be willing to send money to other nations, foregoing the opportunity to use more money on domestic projects. This is not always true. Denmark, who earns less than, U.S. consistently gives more in foreign aid in proportion to their GNI. Generally, the coveted 0.7% GNI targeted by the UN is not achieved by that many countries... only 5 countries achieved over 0.7% in 2013.

     Another objection against the socialist's claim is the fact that foreign aids are not flexible. They are tailored by contract to be used in particular areas and oftentimes given to the government that needs the aid. Now, it may be the case that the determined purpose for the funds may outlast its practicalities, and there is also the problem of being able to trust a government that may or may not be corrupt with large sums of money. If the central bureaucracy judges that they cannot trust unstable governments of third world countries, they would likely not trust them with their foreign aid. NGOs, however, due to their non-governmental nature, can spend their money on the people of the country they are aiding by tailoring to their needs, instead of giving money to the foreign government.

     Much can be said about the socialist's claim, but I will not address them due to spacial concerns. But I can say that socialist and statist policies that hinder charity through NGOs and individual charities. Suppose that we burden the top 1% of our nation with 90% tax rate. Some would be compelled to leave the country. For those who stay, they will nonetheless be significantly hindered in giving large sums of money to charity organizations. Here, we have a scenario where neither the government and NGOs can fully benefit. A large part of our world's charity works are done by Christian churches, the Catholic Church being the dominant one. Now, if the wealthiest are heavily taxed up to 90%, then they will also lose their capacity to tithe - a 10% of their income - to their churches. We are all familiar of how the Catholic Church is active in third world countries in helping out the poor. Imposing a socialist or statist policies would hinder their projects and actions of good will.

     Further, it should be noted that the importance of NGOs, when counted as a whole, is their flexibility and their ability to give insights. Different NGOs focus on different narrow aspects of injustice. For example, there is an NGO that builds schools for girls to be educated in hopes of rescuing them from systemic oppression of women. But another NGO finds out that, on her way to the school, she is raped. It is further found that, due to the ineffective law enforcement of the country, the rapist would reign freely without a fear of conviction. This fact compels her and other girls to skip out on school out of fear, and their parents to stop sending the girls to school. So the NGO would focus on improving the law enforcement of the country in need. This problem with the law enforcement would not have been noticed by the NGO seeking to educate, and they would consequently have wasted their money. It was through the NGO that focuses on legal justice the former were able to educate girls. This symbiotic relationships of different NGOs cannot be matched by what central bureaucracies can do alone.

     Another reason why socialism and statist ideologies can hinder the efforts toward global care is that, if NGO activities are lessened from people having less money to spend toward charity organizations, the NGOs will consequently have less people they are able to hire. In effect, they will have less experts to aid particular issues. There is a wide array of experts NGOs are able to send. Among many more, they include: lawyers, criminal investigators, educators, engineers, geologists, doctors, and social workers.

(An obvious objection from a socialist would be that the state can replace the charitable manpower lost. But of course, as stated above, this is assuming that the state bureaucracy would be willing to spend more money toward foreign powers instead of domestic interests, a foolish assumption to be had. Further, there is the problem of the central bureaucracy detecting problems of other countries.)

     As can be seen, socialism and other statist ideologies are not conducive to global charity. In fact, it appears that some liberal progressives' support for socialism is incompatible with their narrative of global progress by potentially limiting the resources - capital, specialized manpower, and innovations - sent to less developed worlds.

Marvel's Daredevil and Jessica Jones: A Tale of Two Cities

WARNING: SPOILERS

Netflix recently released two shows based on Marvel comics: Daredevil and Jessica Jones. They are both set in New York City within the Marvel's cinematic universe. Though set in the same city, the two narratives tell of two distinct cities.

     New York City portrayed by both shows are within the Marvel's cinematic universe, meaning that it is a city once battered by the alien invasion that occurred in The Avengers. Its citizens are still trying to recuperate from the damages of the alien invasion while criminals are taking advantage of the harsh situations of the city. It is a dark city overrun by evils of men.

     In Daredevil, however, all is not lost among the darkness. The show's main character, Matthew Murdock, also known as the Daredevil, is a Catholic whose motives for becoming a hero is deeply rooted in his moral conscience. The show is not stingy when it comes to highlighting his Catholic identity; the show starts with Matthew in a confessional with a priest. Furthermore, at the end of episode 1, the show ends with the protagonists talking of virtue, a word that is quite rare in modern moral language apart from the religious. In recognizing that he is gifted with superhuman senses and advanced martial arts techniques, he finds himself suited to fight against the evils that corrupt the city. In becoming a hero, his alias "Daredevil" gives new meaning to the word. Daring to go against the tide of evil is indeed audacious in line of the traditional understanding of the word. Yet he is a person who dares to go against the devil, someone who dares the devil. In fighting evil, he does not become evil himself; in defeating the villains, he refuses to kill.

     Matthew is a lawyer, a morally conscious lawyer at that. The profession in the show, however, is not portrayed in such a way. Lawyers are portrayed as Machiavellian individuals who show no sympathy for the disadvantaged. In fact, they work their hardest to exploit the disadvantaged. Matthew stands out among other lawyers in the show in that he has a sense of purpose driven by his moral convictions. New York City in Daredevil is thus a ruined city with hope wherein a hero delivers divine justice through his deeds.

     Jessica Jones is quite different, however. The heroine Jessica Jones, although gifted with super strength, is a victim of a mind controlling villain Killgrave. Under his control, she lived in a hell.... She was forced to kill, forced to show affection toward him, and force to have sex with him (which is in effect rape). She wanted to do them while not wanting to do any of them; her sense of autonomy was totally depraved under his control, rendering her super power irrelevant. She is portrayed as a victim, to be sure. She suffers from PTSD and behavioral issues that impede her from having meaningful relationships with people.

     The show doesn't portray Jessica as the only person incapable of meaningful relationships. In fact, the show portrays romantic relationships in general in an extremely poor light. Jessica gets into a sexual relationship with Luke Cage, a person gifted with unbreakable skin. There is a hope for romance between the two, but the relationship does not progress far; they end up using each other for sexual pleasure in hopes of curing their loneliness. A lesbian lawyer (keeping up with the portrayal of lawyers in Daredevil) Jeri Hogarth seeks to divorce her wife to be with her secretary Pam. Even with Pam, Hogarth is incapable of establishing a meaningful relationship... Pam ends up killing Wendy, Hogarth's Wife, while Wendy is trying to kill Hogarth by giving her 1,000 cuts as ordered by Killgrave. Trish, Jessica's best friend Trish gets into a romantic relationship with Will Simpson who turned out to be a villain. What is the show trying to point at through these negative portrayals of sex and romance? I believe that it is the moral depravity of its characters and the city itself.

     The failures of romantic and sexual relationships are grounded in characters' moral failures. Jessica is intemperate, Luke is lustful, Hogarth is manipulative, and Simpson is a cold-blooded killer. Apart from the main characters, the city is run amok with sexual vices. In fact, Jessica is a private investigator often hired by Hogarth whose clients are in need of exposing their cheating spouses in order to get more money at the divorce court.

     Sexual immoralities are "insignificant" when compared to the consequences of violent crimes, to be sure. But the same vices of main characters lead them toward causing violence. Out of her intemperance, Jessica delivers her heroic justice in morally questionable ways. She used Killgrave's parents to have Killgrave turned in to the police, fully recognizing the danger of the parents being killed (which they do), and she also tortures Killgrave, killing him by violently twisting his neck at the end of the show. Jessica, unlike Matthew, becomes evil to fight evil. Hogarth, through her manipulations, causes Killgrave to escape and consequently cause her wife to attempt to kill her.

     These signs of moral depravities is not hidden in the show's choice of words. The cuss-word of choice in this show is "god damn it"; the word is said by characters too often to be left unnoticed.  The choice is not a mere attempt for Marvel to keep the level of verbal vulgarity to a PG-13 level. The motive is to portray the city in a contrary light from Daredevil. Daredevil portrays New York City through the narrative of a hero with religious and moral convictions; it perhaps portrays a city werein the will of God is being done. However, Jessica Jones portrays the city as a city damned by God. In fact, Daredevil portrays religion, Catholicism in particular, in a positive light through Matthew Murdock whereas Jessica Jones does not. In Jessica Jones, Hogarth proposes to Pam despite her legal status of being married to her wife. When she does, Pam says that she can't because she's a Catholic. Here, the show uses Pam to portray a world where religion is meaningless; Pam commits adultery and homosexual acts, both of which are condemned by Catholic teachings, all the while calling herself "Catholic."

     To me, both shows were excellent. Their narrative styles were engaging and also their efforts to build up characters were better than most shows out there. I was pleased how Jessica Jones, a show that came out later than Daredevil, is in a quiet philosophical dialogue with Daredevil. It almost seemed to me that the writer of Jessica Jones was saying: "No, this is the kind of world the characters live in." Perhaps this dialogue will continue throughout the years, season after season, one I am anxious to spectate.