The S-Word
Judging from the signs and slogans which are so often on display during “tea parties,” “9-12” protests, and other tawdry public gatherings of the Radical Right, there seems to be a lot of confusion within the United States about the meaning of the word “socialism.” As described by the political shock jocks of Talk Radio and Fox News, “socialism” is a dictatorial, freedom-hating ideology characteristic of the Obama administration, North Korea, Nazi Germany, and France. If this seems to cast a nonsensically wide net, it is because Right Wing demagogues and their thoughtless minions tend to use the term “socialism” as an expression of emotion rather than an intellectual concept… somewhat akin to yelling “fuck you!” If, for whatever reason, you don’t like someone—because he or she is too “liberal” or spendthrift or dark-skinned or well-spoken for your taste—then you simply yell “socialist!” as a means of conveying both your anger and your ignorance.
Of course, anyone who has bothered to do any reading about socialism knows that it is an inherently democratic ideology which bears little resemblance to the ego-maniacal authoritarianism of Stalin or Pol Pot. For instance, The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels describes the revolutionary struggle of the working class as “the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.” Even the politically bland Columbia Encylopedia makes clear that socialism is about “cooperation and social service”—in contrast to capitalism’s emphasis upon “competition and profit.”
From a capitalist perspective, the problem with socialist ideology is not that it is insufficiently democratic, but that it is a little too democratic. Socialism calls for real democracy in which people can exert control over the political and economic forces that impact their lives. But modern capitalist mythology depends on the fiction that it is possible to have political democracy and obscene levels of economic inequality at the same time. Even though most people would admit that billionaires like Rupert Murdoch have far more political power than dishwashers and janitors, we are all supposed to pretend that, because Rupert casts only a single vote on election day—just like us—his vast investment portfolio and media empire are politically irrelevant. However, a malcontent socialist might ask how it’s possible to have true democracy when one person’s private property (Rupert’s News Corp.) is another person’s means of survival (working as a janitor for News Corp.)—or how that janitor’s single vote on election day stacks up against Rupert’s unparalleled access to elected officials thanks to his billions, or his ability to single-handedly underwrite political campaigns with his billions, or his power to shape all manner of political and policy debates through his personal control of national media outlets.
Needless to say, these are rather heady concepts which fall far beyond the intellectual grasp of the average Glenn Beck fan or Rush Limbaugh listener. More often than not these days, the Right-Wing charge of “socialism” is directed at particular legislative initiatives which emanate from the Obama administration—like health care reform that could conceivably expand the availability of health care. Right Wingers are particularly worried that the United States might one day end up with a form of national health insurance that resembles that of {gasp!} France, where people live longer and suffer fewer preventable deaths despite lower per-capita health care expenditures. Of course, the United States already has a form of national health insurance for old people (Medicare), not to mention national retirement benefits for old people (Social Security), so one might ask why the Right Wingers aren’t calling for an end to those seemingly “socialist” programs as well. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many of the opponents of health care reform are themselves old people who are dependent upon Medicare and Social Security.
At any rate, the convoluted mis-understanding of the term “socialism” which is so often on display in Right Wing circles was captured perfectly in one of the year’s most amusing Right Wing protest signs: “Don’t steal from Medicare to support socialized medicine.” {Sigh.…}
Good work. You’re spot on about the misuse of the term socialism by the bigoted zealots of the right. Despite the best efforts of parasite drug companies to undermine universal healthcare systems across the developed world, we still manage have one here in Australia, as do ever other advanced country in modern world. America is behind the curb in a big way on healthcare and other social welfare systems and you can thank your redneck anti-communist fanatics for that. Historically, American socialists fled persecution in that distinctly un-free country, mostly to Canada, which is why that country is so much better to live in for everyone but a few wealthy capitalist parasites. Even American trade unions have been brainwashed and browbeaten into fearing socialism despite their dire ignorance as to what socialism actually can be. The truth is capitalism and democracy have always been mutually exclusive, the more of one you have, the less you have of the other; this fact is born out all around you. The reason rightwing automatons fear democracy is because it will inevitably lead to something resembling socialism where private wealth accumulation will be seen for exactly what it is; an attempt to dominant and control others, to have power over others for one’s own selfish and egotistically ends. For the political right, power is an end in itself.
Comment by Morfhis — November 9, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
I agree with many things you have to say in your article. It’s true, socialism is misconstrued by many rightwingists and ultra-conservatives. The way I define socialism is, as a form of government, having more control of the countries commodities (e.g. business, manufacturing, money, healthcare, etc.) and regulates those commodities so as to share or give in the interest of the “immense majority.” I think that “the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority” is great and noble, but if it’s in the hands of government and not the people is where I disagree. If the people did this, that would be a great thing. America is supposedly run by the people, so this could work, but we, as a people, have decided to let the government handle most of these things. Countries like France, Canada, etc. are all socialist coutnries and they are doing fine. They have not suffered a Hitler or Stalin or the likes, but, if the rights of the people are removed (e.g. Hitler’s Enabling Act or Bush’s Patriot Act) should the country steer into a dictatorship, coupled with socialism (government regulation of the countries commodities), the government would have total control on all levels of a person’s life from business to health to politics. Of course, I don’t think that many of the Glenn Beckers have thought in this way, but that is as I see it. I also believe that democracy is a far different thing from socialism, capitalism, communism and any other type of ism, really. Really democracy just means everyone has a voice. So it is a function, or an adjective, to whatever type of government your country has, albeit a fascist government could never be a true democracy. The United States is a democratic republic. It is a shame that greed and selfishness has steered the capatilist vehicle because I think these elements have tainted what “free market capitalism” should be and made it into “capitalism on steroids” which I don’t agree with. But then again that is why the founding fathers believed that only a just, moral, upright and prudent people could truly thrive in the type of society they created when they founded the United States of America. Their idea of course was that anyone could acquire any amount of wealth, and when there were no central banks, this was indeed true, if they worked hard and diligently, but greed steps in and this is why we have problems and view capitalists as “greedy pigs” and the like.
Socialism-
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
~merriam-websters
Comment by Michael — December 10, 2009 @ 12:46 am