George Rebane

“The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label.”  Upton Sinclair

[The two short pieces that follow define socialism – the first is mine and the second was penned by RR reader and lifelong Nevada County resident Michael McDaniel.  The timing of these definitions is in response to the question raised by KVMR News Director Paul Emery on a recent call-in program with me.]

These days we all talk about people being or acting like right wingers, left wingers, liberals, conservatives, progressives, capitalists, libertarians, communists, …, and socialists.  Since I’m probably guiltier than most in hanging such ideology tinged labels around people’s necks (some of them even take exception to this) I will try to clarify what I mean by at least one of these labels – socialist.

First, we dispense with the nonsense that someone has to have ALL the consensus attributes of a socialist or whatever to be called such.  If that were the case, information summarizing labels and stereotyping efficiencies would disappear and language would collapse – not gonna happen.  BTW, if you thought this is going to be some kind of tip-toeing, politically correct treatise, please turn the page.

Socialism is a form of governance that seeks as its endgame the state ownership of the means of production and distribution which it executes through a centralized process of planning and control.  Socialism teaches that it can be achieved through a bit by piece transformation of capitalism, there need be no sudden overturn of the existing system or “basic character of the state”.  And in the end we will have a salubrious and classless environment that distributes goods and services to individuals on some yet to-be-defined basis of people’s deeds – i.e. “the quantity and quality of work done.”

The reason that socialism’s endgame is yet TBD is that we know of no country that has been able to carry out this transition to its terminus.  Things have always fallen apart before getting there, so that we don’t even know if there is any there there.  In short, no sustainable socialist state has yet been achieved.  But the pace of attempts toward that goal have picked up as capitalism, riding on the back of accelerating technology, has dunned the dumb and the dear for the clever and the capable.

The natural opening that this course of events has provided is a ready path to sinecures and power for politicians.  All they have to promise to the over-priced and under-educated is ‘equality’ through the forced redistribution of wealth.  In a pure democracy – a necessary pre-condition, see the 17th amendment – this is a lead pipe cinch and even has a name, the Peter/Paul Principle.

By now the careful reader may be asking, ‘well, what then is communism?’  Communism has a stateless endpoint populated by a classless people who work altruistically to produce at the best of their abilities for which they are to receive goods and services to satisfy their needs.  The methodology to operate such a society is also TBD, no one yet has created such a happy land.

But communism teaches that the road to achieve it must start with a fundamental transformation that rapidly changes the “basic character of the state” – we’re here talking revolution, no deliberate pace or hemming and hawing.  The direct result of this is the immediate installation of an all-powerful state run by elites ‘serving’ the classless people.  The state takes immediate ownership of all means of production and distribution, and, of course, does all the planning and control.  And as the succeeding generations are ‘educated’ toward the goal of the acculturated ‘communist man’, Stalin’s succinct prescription comes to mind – ‘To make an omelet, one has to break a few eggs.’

With this we can now define a socialist as one who, in a pre-socialist environment, makes political decisions and conducts himself in the daily round so as to promote (Cass Sunstein’s ‘nudge’ comes to mind) his society on the path to the socialist goal described above.

I can hear the howls already – ‘I have no intention of going all the way to socialism, I just think things will be better with a little progress toward state ownership, planning, and control.  I’m more nuanced than that you simplistic sumbich!’  Well friend, you may indeed be more nuanced than that.  But I don’t know your degree of nuancing (new word), and I’m sure that it’s not the same as that of your friend there who is now pushing for the same ‘reforms’.  If you’re both on the apparent road to socialism, then we’ll call you socialists for short.  It sure as hell communicates effectively because if I tell any third person that you are a socialist, then he’ll be able to reliably predict your near-term political decisions and conduct as the events of the days unfold.  And that’s all that I aim to do by hanging that little label around your neck.

I do consider socialism a misguided form of governance destructive to human aspirations and the human spirit.  But my calling someone a socialist is not an insult any more than their calling me a conservative or right-winger or whatever that communicates to their audience.  And I apply a similar protocol to any of the other labels the more detailed definitions can be teased out of me at some future time.  Nuff said.

[The following contribution by Michael McDaniel on socialism is from an email to me.  It refers to the above noted KVMR program hosted by Paul Emery, and is here used by permission.]

During your KVMR interview the subject of being labeled or called a socialist was discussed.  It was clear to listeners that the host was a card carrying member of the ‘socialist movement.’  What was not clear is why such card carrying members dislike or disapprove of being called socialist.  Does the term socialist need to be clearly defined in order to allow it to be used? Why are capitalists not ashamed of being called capitalists?

The term socialist is used as a disparaging label in our home.  Socialists are anti-liberty. Socialism or to promote the enslavement of the individual to the collective is immoral and anti-American (“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”).   Socialists believe that the correct equation designed and implemented via ‘planners’, ‘bureaucrats’, ‘czars’, ‘regulations’, ‘entitlements’, ‘debt’ provide the elixir of equality or social justice.

We believe that social justice or equality is a birthright byproduct of our God given liberty and not the byproduct of government manipulation.  It is a difficult argument at the foundation of the progressive philosophy or socialism; that men acting in their own self interest in private enterprise are inherently more ‘evil’ than the same men put into positions of power in government. 

A caller noted that being called a socialist somehow deprived them of being patriotic.  I believe that history has shown that socialist/communist communities are greatly patriotic (maybe too patriotic).  There is irony in the terms “patriot” and “patriotic.”  For it was our country’s original patriots who fought against the homeland; yet being patriotic currently means love of country… but I digress.

The term “Progressive” needs to be examined as well.  Progressivism is a ‘gateway’ philosophy. The logical progression (forgive the pun) is to have a progressive movement evolve into a socialist movement which evolves into a communist movement… Throughout this enslaving evolution the liberty of the individual is robbed to increase the power of government.

Again, it is a difficult argument at the foundation of the progressive philosophy; that men acting in their own self interest in private enterprise are inherently more ‘evil’ than the same men put into positions of absolute power in government.