Ronald Reagan: An American Life (p. 162):
"One of the first things I told the members of my cabinet was that when I had a decision to make, I wanted to hear all sides of the issue, but there was one thing I didn’t want to hear: the political ramifications of my choices. The minute you begin saying, 'This is good or bad politically,' I said, 'you start compromising principle. The only consideration I want to hear is whether it is good or bad for the people.'"

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Socialism and Solidarity


The Democratic Socialists of America state, “Our vision of socialism is a profoundly democratic one, rooted in the belief that individuals can only reach their full potential in a society that embodies the values of liberty, equality, and solidarity. Only through creating material and cultural bonds of solidarity across racial, gender, age, national, and class lines can true equality of opportunity be achieved.” See Section 1 of “Where We Stand.”

Superficially, this vision appears beautiful. I realized, though, that I did not know the definition of solidarity. It sounds good. It is a popular word. It must be right. But what does it mean?

According to Dictionary.com, solidarity is union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests. It is a community of responsibilities, interests, feelings and/or purposes

Is it possible to have perfect solidarity without a shared religion? My sense of responsibility comes from my faith in God. My interests, feelings and purpose in life are inextricably entwined with my religion.

How much unity of belief is necessary to make socialism work? Can we find that kind of unity in a pluralist society?

No comments:

Post a Comment