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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Do We Fight Back Against What We All See Coming?

The country is heading over a cliff and the brake lines have been cut. This is readily apparent to anyone paying attention. A rogue political party with malign intent and vast resources is bent on dismantling our entire system, and they’re doing it in plain sight. They assume we’ll just let them. The question is what to do about it. Yes, we hold slim majorities in the legislative branch, but those majorities are frighteningly fragile. If the filibuster is altered — which seems both necessary and inevitable — it could backfire spectacularly when Republicans next take power. Which is more than possible, even as soon as 2022. Democracy itself seems to be backed against the wall. This leaves @Shoq — who takes this all quite personally — perplexed and frustrated. Most of his 25,000 Twitter followers get nourishment from his acerbic but cogent analyses of the ills we face, and they know that his alarmism is well backed by facts, reason, and perspective. The trouble he sees — and wha

Kompromat, and Why You Can’t Assume Allen Weisselberg will Flip

In my last post, I wandered into the slippery world of idle speculation — sort of a second cousin to conspiracy theory — and found I quite enjoyed it. So continuing in that vein, I’ll weigh in on a question being asked a lot these days:   Why won’t Trump Organization CFO, Allen Weisselberg, flip on Trump? It seems a no-brainer. Between the almost certain prison time and the family upheavals he faces, it is inconceivable that loyalty to Trump could extend that far. But what if it’s not about Trump? What if he’s keeping his mouth shut for more existential reasons? What if the consequences of singing are more dire than we know? Ever wonder why Paul Manafort didn’t flip on Trump? Why he chose real prison time over spilling secrets? I don’t believe for a minute it was for Trump — trusting Trump for anything, much less a future pardon, would be deluded. But when you think about the circles Manafort ran in back in 2015 — the people the Mueller investigation was trying to get him to

Was the Fight Over Obamacare a GOP Scam All Along?

Please bear with me as I indulge in a flight of fancy, a reasoned rearrangement of existing facts into a theory that may or may not be provable. I know, it sounds uncomfortably Republican, but hear me out. It’s not my intention to rewrite history, just to look at it from another angle. Which might just prove instructive. I have always been puzzled by the failure of the GOP to kill the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — “Obamacare” — especially when they had their big chance in 2017. They had a president (of sorts) who had repeatedly declared Obamacare “a total disaster.” They had a majority in both houses of Congress. They had the House pass a repeal bill — remember Paul Ryan toasting the tantalizing prospect of twenty million new uninsured? Repeal was just a Senate vote away. Senate Republicans, meanwhile, had designed — using the budget “reconciliation” tactic we now know so well — a filibuster-proof bill, and they’d told the world they were on a mission to “repeal and replace” Obamac