Skip to main content

Socialism is Just Another Word for Government

 

I’m treating myself to a week off — holiday season and all — and so, once again, I’m re-publishing an essay I posted over a year ago, before the November election. The subject is socialism, and as it happens, I just this week used similar themes in a much shorter letter to the New York Times, responding to an article on the same subject. I’ve just been informed that NYT is publishing the letter sometime this week. Meanwhile, the original is, I think, well worth another look.

 

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.

Comments

  1. I know this is a repost, but I didn't read it the first time. For once, you and I are in 100% agreement! YAY! Thus, I will use this occasion to pile on, if I may. The argument used to be that businesses were naturally more efficient than governmental agencies. There may have been a case for that before Bill Clinton along with the project lead, VP Al Gore, did a lot to wipe out the type of excesses that the Federal government was once known for. While I'm sure there are pockets of excess remaining, tight budgets and modern management techniques have combined to make most governmental agencies as efficient as your average business.

    Therefore, what remains is profit. For some companies, this amounts to some of the most inefficient use of capital on the planet. Shareholders and executives pocket massive amounts of money that could be plowed into expanded and/or cheaper services. So, when Republicans lobby for privatizing services that obviously belong to governments like public health, correctional services, and public education, they are not doing it to save their constituents' money. They're doing it to line the pockets of their ACTUAL constituents -- wealthy shareholders and executives (all of which are also shareholders).

    It kills me that working-class voters who are loyal to the Republican party have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they allow their own party to scrape away any hope of getting ahead in the name of anti-socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is someone reading your pathetic opinions? WWG1WGA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Denise, if that is your real name, that is some real mediocre trolling. Keep practicing though. You'll get better.

      Delete
  3. Talk about Democrat psychosis syndrome, you silly people will be proven to be just plain wrong about everything. Now is your time to hide in the basement and to not be seen in public, or get some plastic surgery?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The GOP's Weaknesses are More Apparent than its Strengths

  Anyone who’s paying attention now understands that this election is a whole lot scarier than it ever should have been. It’s a shame — and an indictment of our constitutional system — that it comes down to an election at all. Surely, the Trump problem should have been settled by now, with no further elections required to get him out of our lives. His crimes were such that the real crime was letting him remain at large. All those checks and balances we were taught to revere should have somehow found a way to rid us of this monster. But the Supreme Court seems to have Trump’s back, though it’s not clear what that gains them. If anything, it makes one wonder what Trump is holding over them, and what might happen to their families if they don’t keep him out of prison. So it will come down to the election, and the lines couldn’t be drawn more indelibly. I prefer to think this can work out well — that these scorched-earth hacks can be overwhelmed at the ballot box

The New York Times has Gone Over to the Dark Side

  A week or so ago, Trump took a break from the courtroom and held a rally in a picturesque corner of New Jersey, a state he has no hope of winning. His speech at this rally was even more unhinged than usual, featuring his now-famous tributes to Al Capone and Hannibal Lecter — the latter being as fictional as Trump’s medical records, but seemingly real in his mind. These speeches are growing worse over time, and they seem to betray a worsening cognitive condition. Unfortunately, the New York Times doesn’t see it that way. Their reporting of the event was basically a puff piece . To them, this rally was Trump’s well-deserved break from the rigors and indignities of his criminal trial. They marvel that, “after a long and tense week,” he could now head to the Jersey Shore for some much-needed rest and adulation: Against the backdrop of classic Americana, Mr. Trump repeated his typical criticism that Mr. Biden’s economic policies were hurting the middle class.

Trump and Pecker Sittin’ in a Tree

  Before there was Fox News, before there was Rush Limbaugh, before there was the sprawling rightwing ecosystem of fake news and vicious smears we so enjoy today, there was the National Enquirer . For most of our lives, the Enquirer stared up at us from the checkout aisle of our local supermarket. Somehow, we never made the connection that its readers would one day fit the stereotype of the Trump voter — under-educated, gullible, malleable, easy targets for disinformation. The Enquirer nurtured those targets over many decades, got them to believe virtually anything, and helped lay the groundwork for the sort of know-nothing insurgency that brought Trump into all our lives. Decades ahead of its time, the Enquirer was peddling fake news long before it was fashionable. It appealed unapologetically to humanity’s baser instincts, the ones most of us try to rise above. It was always flamboyantly sleazy, and always there in plain sight, something we could dependably