In this post, I wade into the thicket of political philosophy, despite the fact that it's not a subject in which I'm particularly well-versed. (But when has that ever stopped me before?) I've probably made some major over-simplifications in what follows, and possibly some misstatements. And I know that several of you (you know who you are) could easily argue me under the table, so please be nice to me.
***
When I joined Facebook, I included on my profile page a reference to being a "socialist." With quotation marks.
Why the quotes? A friend asked. Has Joe the Plumber gotten to me?
Not at all. The reason for the quotes? On the one hand, I don't really consider myself a socialist. But, on the other hand, a lot of people, Joe the Proverbial Plumber included, probably would.
According to Wikipedia,
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth.
That's obviously a wildly simplistic definition, and there are many variations of political belief that fall under the umbrella of socialism.
What kills me, though, is conservatives' insistence on branding everyone with beliefs that lean to the left of center or that even hint at the government regulation of the market economy a socialist. I, for one, think that capitalism is the most effective economic means of creating wealth -- of biggening the pie -- and that biggening the pie is fundamentally a good thing. And I'm know I'm not alone among liberals / progressives / etc. in this belief. I'm also pretty sure that this belief places me outside the umbrella of traditional socialism. But that won't stop people from hurling that word at me and others, ignoring its true meaning, simply because I believe that the free market is not perfect and needs some regulation to prevent its excesses from running amok. (I mean seriously, people, have we not LEARNED ANYTHING these last few months?!?)
Which gets me to my second point. Despite the progress we like to think we've made over the last fifty years, it appears that the spirit of McCarthyism is alive and well, since the specter of socialism is still so often wielded as a weapon. Now, one might legitimately disagree about whether socialism in practice is functional, one might disagree with its ends, one might disagree with its means. But that disagreement does not render those who believe in socialism EVIL. It might well render them WRONG, but that's a different thing altogether.
Looking back at that definition again, particularly the part that talks about "an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth," that sounds like a fair and worthy goal. And I am quite certain that government must play a role to help nudge the markets in that direction, because they most certainly will not go there on their own. Now, I'm familiar with the old argument that social ills -- racism and sexism, to name just a few -- will not survive in a truly free market. But the problem is, markets are not truly free. Among other shortcomings, they are run by humans -- fallible, imperfect humans -- who don't always act in a stricly utilitarian fashion. And so, although worthy goals such as eliminating racism and sexism might well be a smart move economically, the Powers That Be may be disinclined to do so for reasons that economics can't account for.
And if all of that makes me a "socialist," with quotations or without, then so be it. But don't delude yourself into thinking I'm offended by that in the slightest.
***
One last thought: I recently came across a comment from someone who was upset with the new administration's "socialist" tendencies. His response? To threaten to move to Canada. Which...wha huh who'd you say what now? Do you know ANYTHING about Canada? Please pardon me as I bang my head on the wall repeatedly.