Skip to main content

Socialism is Just Another Word for Government

Call it the S-word, the dirtiest word in American politics.

To say that socialism is vastly misunderstood doesn’t begin to state the case. It’s a word that has been cynically manipulated by all manner of right-wing nuts for roughly a century, and it never seems to lose its power to get them worked up.

Yet they’ve largely succeeded in villainizing and undermining what is, ironically, a deeply embedded aspect of our society.

The usual definitions just confuse the discussion. They tend to say something abstract like “Socialism is an economic system that promotes communal ownership of the means of production,” which is neither useful nor particularly accurate.

In practical everyday terms, socialism is another word for government. In the “social democracies” of Europe, where it’s widely practiced to one extent or another — and where it’s anything but a dirty word — socialism describes the set of systems each government constructs to temper the excesses, and make up for the shortcomings, of capitalism.

What the right is right about (yes, it’s a short list) is that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and Obamacare are indeed socialistic entities, or would be considered so in Europe — though ours are half-assed by comparison. Demonized as they are on the right, all these programs are wildly popular, and their enormous social usefulness has long since transcended any silly label, pejorative or otherwise.

Republicans, however, have not gotten that message, no matter how many times the electorate repeats it. They’ve been gunning for all these programs for as long as they’ve existed. They may yet kill them off. Because Republicans — and the oligarchs who own them — don’t like government.

Anything a government invests in for the benefit of its citizenry is anathema to Republicans, and they never hesitate to use the S-word to excoriate it, whatever the ‘it’ happens to be.

But public health is socialism. Meat inspection is socialism. Drug safety, occupational safety, environmental safety, air traffic control, weather reporting — even the military and the federal prison system — all these and much more depend on government to make them work. They are all socialism. None are required to turn a profit, or even break even.

The profit motive, so intrinsic to free-market capitalism, fails miserably at delivering these social imperatives.

Now, capitalism is also misunderstood. When we speak of it, we usually describe it as an economic system, but this is a bit misleading. It’s not so much a system of economics as it is economics itself. Or put another way, it’s how trade happens.

You have a buyer. You have a seller. They arrive at a price. They seal the deal. With luck the transaction takes place on a level playing field, in a market where all buyers and sellers can compete fairly. That’s capitalism, more or less. Sometimes it works, sometimes it sucks.

But capitalism isn’t going anywhere. In a way, it’s embedded in human nature. Which is an important point, because no economic system works well when human nature isn’t accounted for. People have ambitions. People want to buy things. People want to live well, both for themselves and for their children.

History is littered with failed states that tried to alter or ignore human nature, to eradicate the profit motive and private enterprise. It took the Soviet Union sixty years to sink under the weight of its “planned” economy. North Korea’s economy has never had a shred of viability in its entire history — the entire system seems built around letting people starve. But that’s communism, which we can characterize as socialism taken to wild and dangerous extremes, and which has never been shown to work.

So when a country designs its economic system, capitalism is a given. The key question is capitalism plus what? How much regulation — how many guardrails — does the government put in place? Or, in other words, how much socialism is required.

Because human nature isn’t a uniformly wonderful thing. Yes, people want to get ahead. But they also want to cheat. They want to put their thumb on the scale. They want to be piggy and grab too much. They want to use too much wealth to amass too much power.

When free markets are left too free — as Republicans and their oligarch masters have succeeded in letting them do — all kinds of corrosive elements are introduced. Without adequate guardrails, capitalism inevitably devolves into monopoly power, which brings on a toxic stew of dangerous inequalities, degradation of labor, institutional racism, warping of the rule of law, and ultimately a system that works for the very few at the expense of the many. Sound familiar? It’s called fascism.

This country once had a decent set of working guardrails. Not great, but decent. You can argue whether they were the right guardrails — whether they struck the right balance between regulation and free enterprise — but you can’t argue that once they were there, and now they’re not.

The virus is vividly showing us how badly we need them back. We need them shored up, built on, and paid for. Which means we need a lot more government than we’re getting now.

If that sounds like the S-word to some people, it's long past time they got over it.


Berkley Mi

Friday 09/04/20


Comments

  1. Right on. And don't forget the police and fire departments, public schools, roads....all classic examples of Socialism.
    You mention the military. It is a sub-society that is 100% socialist, making it essentially communist. Ever been on an army or airforce base? The entire infrastructure, as well as housing, stores, gyms, clinics, hospitals, recreational facilities, you name it... are government owned and run. They do bring in private contractors to provide some services... but it is 100% financed, owned and run by the government. Right under our nose, and with American flags flying high!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not convinced that the military operates under the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor" but good points.

      Delete
  2. I just remembered my favorite oldest use of the wrongest word. "...certain UNalienable rights" or in rumps case Wrongs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If God did not mean for America to have a bigger military budget than the next ten countries together, he would not have made everyone else in the world our enemy! So the military is not socialist, it's Christian! There. I squared that circle for you.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I