These past few weeks we’ve all heard a lot of talk about socialism. Is President Obama a socialist? Is our nation becoming socialist? Are we already a socialist nation?
These are serious questions that we can not properly address under the current, hostile political environment. The problem is that there is not currently a discussion on the subject of socialism, only charges and counter charges. There is a reason for this hostility and it is essential that we understand this in order to protect our nation.
The reason we are locked into charges and counter charges is that there are two definitions of the term Socialism at use in the United States. One definition is an accusation; a slur, the other definition is of a political and economic philosophy that involves a centralized economic authority and wealth redistribution.
Most people in the United States of America consider the word socialist to be a dirty and insulting term because Socialism has a terrible history of tyranny and failure throughout the world. We’ve seen the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Cuba, and China, all efforts at socialism that became totalitarian states.
Because words like socialism are slurs, as soon you broach the subject of socialism related to the current healthcare ‘reforms’ and the economic bailouts and alleged ‘stimulus,’ you guarantee an angry, and therfore irrational, response. Angry and therefore irrational unless you are talking to a self-avowed socialist or one of those people that like to point out how much of our economic and political system is already socialist, as if that made everything okay (I saw an essay on just this approach on facebook recently – the writer cited several examples of regulated parts of our society without recognizing that his examples were fodder for anti-big government types like me).
Many of those people that use the term socialist or socialism are, in fact, attempting to insult and stigmitize their political opponents. However, there are also many people, this blogger included, who use the term as a definition that comes from political science and does not carry the emotional baggage of the USSR, China, etc.
Socialism, according to Wikipedia, refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by economic equality for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation. Note for those of you concerned about the validity of Wikipedia’s definition; the definition in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is similar.
Socialists believe that capitalism concentrates wealth and power on a select few. This inequality is to be remedied by state ownership of what socialists refer to as, “The means of production.” Central planning insures the right quantities of goods at the right prices.
Social democracy, according to Wikipedia, promotes the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers’ rights. Social democracy rejects the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat, claiming that gradualist democratic reforms will improve the rights of the working class. Instead the goal of social democracy is to reform capitalism through parliamentary and democratic processes in order to achieve a welfare state, government regulation of the market, and various state sponsored programs to ameliorate and remove the inequities and injustices inflicted by the capitalist market system.
Is President Obama a socialist? A social democrat? Should words like socialism be accusations? Are we socialist nation or a social democracy? And if we are a social democracy, should we worry about evolving toward full socialism, even communism?
I’ll write more on this soon, including my opinions on the questions from the above paragraph – opinions that I have tried to leave out of this article for the sake of quality debate. In the meantime, I would appreciate your comments on these questions.
{ 8 comments }
I do not believe Barack Obama to be a socialist. However, I do believe he has socialist tendencies. My concern that this country could move in a more socialist direction with some of Mr. Obama’s policies, directly or indirectly.
To NOT call Mr Obama a Socialist is to fall into the PC censorship trap…
But in current gentile US terminology, Obama is a Big Government Liberal…
Which is the same thing, but gets the point across better to Euro-style leftist blockheads, who flunked Econ101…twice…
Steve, Warren,
I believe that Obama is an “Intellectualist.” More on this to come (this week if job search doesn’t interfere) but the point is, I believe he places far more value in his intellect than his intellect is able to really provide. That is no critisicm of his brains – he is very intelligent but I do not believe he has the capability to evolve the nation in the way he believes.
Socialist? Doubt it; but as I said, more to come.
I believe that for a great number of Americans, Socialism describes the government’s encroachment upon the free enterprise system, and by extension, upon personal freedom.
As I understand the philosophy, Socialists devise to mitigate the gap between the haves and the have-nots. In order to do this, government must redirect wealth and power from the most successful in society, and through government, distribute it to the least successful. By eliminating greed as a motivating factor in the production of goods, Socialists believe that the goods can be produced and distributed in a more efficient way that provides a better standard of living for the working class.
However, there are at least two critical flaws in the Socialistic theory.
First, by attempting to remove greed from the equation, Socialism removes a powerful motivator that drives individuals and corporations toward excellence. Without strong entreprenurial incentives, organizations tend to run less efficiently; therefore, the supply and quality of goods eventually suffers.
Second, by significantly enhancing the entitlement safety net, Socialism increases the number of citizens who demand to be provided for, while simultaneously reducing the number of citizens who continue to contribute. This effect upsets the balance of the economic model, and the entire economy becomes unsustainable.
Ultimately, Socialism doesn’t eliminate greed, because greed is a natural human emotion that can’t be entirely erased. Socialism merely transfers governmental momentum away from the productive greed of the successful, and toward the destructive greed of the unmotivated. Further, the Socialistic model can only be held in place by ever intensifying government control, and erosion of personal freedom, potentially ending in Totalitarian rule.
Americans, I believe, are right to recoil from Socialism. Those who stand against it are today’s American patriots.
I’ll never understand why certain people here (Robert) on this site are so reluctant to call people by the names they have come to be identified with thru their words or actions….
But Robert, Obama as an “intellectual” does not even begin to finish the description….
Algore is an intellectual “weatherman”
Thomas Friedman is an intellectual “writer” and
Mao, Stalin, Hitler were intellectual “mass murderers”
Obama is an intellectual Big Gov, statist, socialist..
So, intellect and intelligence are the adjective modifying the all important noun.
Intelligence, without the accompanying qualities of common sense, practicality and wisdom are like a gun with no bullets, good only for display…intimmidating only the unarmed…
I think Obama, as intellectualist, may be the full explanation. He believes deeply in his power of intellect that he believes he can weave the nation through what is true socialism because he is only going to do what is “right” for people.
While pure socialism and social democracy are not the same, and most Americans don’t understand the difference, I agree: neither would be possible here. We already provide massive amounts of welfare, with which many are fed up with – even some that receive it – and for good reason. Without a massive depression or national/global catastrophe warranting such drastic actions, I don’t think we’ll see a true social democracy anytime soon.
Whether or not Obama is socialist/social democrat/whatever I couldn’t tell you. Haven’t done the research, although I agree from general observation he has socialist tendencies. As for this country, it’s more complicated. In my opinion, we have a long way to before we become a true social democracy, but make no mistake, there are some troubling resemblances. And that bothers me, too.
In a socialist state or a social democracy, government bureaucracy ends up wielding the power. I would argue that our large corporations wield way too much power for either to emerge. We’re probably going more toward a corporation-based oligarchy where campaign money comes more and more from corporations, government regulation is dictated by the industries to be regulated, and the voter has less and less in the way of power or economic opportunity.
{ 1 trackback }