Socialism

8 Conservative Glossary Items #5

According to dictionary.com, this is the definition of socialism:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

If you want to consider socialism to be the ideology at the opposite end of the political thought spectrum from conservatism, then I think you have a point. As liberals and progressives, it is our job to be pragmatic and do what is best for the most people. This means we can't rely on an ideology that requires our worship as many socialists and conservatives do. No, we have to look at both options and keep what works, and throw out the rest. 

From conservatism, we take the economic theory of capitalism which offers people the most freedom to control their own economic destiny. From socialism, we take the idea that government has to play an active role in society, lest the "haves" run over the "have nots". We could argue that these limits on capitalism are moral, and they are. More than that though, they are practical. These limits will prevent social unrest that could lead to violence and eventually, perhaps, a system even worse. In effect, the limits we choose to place on capitalism saves it not only from itself, but saves it from socialism. 

Previous Entries in this Series (An Introduction, Communism, Bolsheviks, Maoism, Marxism)

Bolsheviks

8 Conservative Glossary Items #2

The Bolsheviks were a group of Russians who belonged to a hard-line faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. Their leader was an individual you may have heard of named Vladimir Lenin. The Bolsheviks would eventually rename themselves the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik). The Bolsheviks believed in a party structure that rejected compromise or cooperation with any other political party. They believed that a core group of professional revolutionaries should control the party centrally. After taking over the government, some of their opposition was executed without trial. The Bolsheviks were, essentially, the beginning of the Soviet Union that would terrorize Eastern Europe for decades.

So, is President Obama, as CNBC's Jim Cramer has referred to him, a Bolshevik and is he "taking cues from Lenin"? Rush Limbaugh has made the same claim.  To make this claim as anything other than a cheap political slur is simply dumb and dishonest.

Let's not forget that capitalism has already been rescued by the Democratic party once in our national history. (That would be F.D.R. during a time when much of the nation would have been primed for social revolution. Instead, he made capitalism work for people at every level of our society.) This is what Obama and the Democrats in Congress are attempting to do now. 

Frankly, Bolshevism is much too rigid for the Democratic Party. We are pragmatists. We do not follow doctrine whether communist or market oriented. We take the economic system that includes the most freedom, capitalism, and we get it to work for the most people possible. We couldn't possibly be Bolsheviks.

Previous Entries in this Series (An Introduction, Communism)

Communism

8 Conservative Glossary Items #1

Communism is a system of government in which all property belongs to the state or the community. All activity, whether economic or social, is controlled by the government using totalitarian means. The government is in control of all natural resources and controls all means of production. Communist states are also anti-democratic since most are single party meaning that the Communist Party is the only party permitted to organize.

So, this raises the questions, are Obama's economic policies communist? Well, not even close. Are the economic policies of the Democratic party communist? No, no, no. One item conservatives are pointing to with glee right now is the dismissal of Rick Waggoner as CEO of GM. "This is communism", they scream. Except that it is not. It most certainly is government interference with industry. It is an attempt by the government to allow GM to survive as a private entity. This is not the government taking permanent control of an industry. I suppose that a reasonable person can question the wisdom of this type of interference, but you cannot call it communism.

Any prominent American politician who accuses the President or his party of being "closet communists" is either ignorant of the meaning of communism, or is a liar.

Previous Entries in this Series (An Introduction)

The Protest of Idiots

8 Thoughts About the Last Debate #6

Backed into a corner, McCain, like so many Republicans in the past, is claiming that Obama wants to operate, essentially, in a socialist fashion. Of course, Senator McCain doesn't use the word, but he got his point across. "In other words, we're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama, and let him spread the wealth around." Redistribution of wealth? McCain isn't exactly subtle with the point.

While many people aren't smart enough to really understand the difference between true socialism and what Obama s proposing, let's try to boil it down to the simplest of points. Obama is not looking to eliminate the free market, he's looking to regulate it. He is not proposing total control of our economy by the government; he's looking to make capitalism work for everybody. He is proposing more government involvement in many aspects of our existence, especially with regard to health care. Still, Obama cannot be reasonably labeled a socialist.

The socialist accusation is an outrageous one. The most obvious reason for this accusation (from people who should know better, like John McCain for instance) is to recall the U.S.S.R. and brand socialism as an evil and anyone associated with it as dangerous. If the Republicans are to be believed, Obama plans to tax the rich right back into the middle class. He will steal their wealth and give it to the poor blacks and Latinos. Boo!

Not one single rich individual will be anything except still rich under the Obama tax plan. This is not a redistribution of wealth. To be more accurate, it would be asking a group of Americans to pay their just dues since they derive more from a safe and secure America. Asking the rich to pay their fair share is not acting as a socialist, it's acting fairly.