On the word “socialism”

For as long as I can remember, the word “socialist” has been used as a pejorative by people of one political persuasion against the other. But in the past few years, the word seems to have surged in popularity. And it probably owes its resurgence to none other than Bernie Sanders and his political kin, who, historically maligned by the term, suddenly embraced it as a badge of honor. Which surely prompted the other side to double down on its use of the word as a slur to paint all of its adversaries with a broad dismissive brush. The word is enjoying a rebirth for sure (it even has its own hashtags). But what strikes me as curious about all this is that nobody seems to know what “socialism” actually means (not even Bernie!). This post is my humble attempt to set the record straight, which I’d like to do with a bit of history…

For much of the 1900’s Venezuela was the richest country in South America, one of the world’s fastest growing economies and the number one exporter of oil in the world. In 1958, with the overthrow of a dictator and the election of the opposition leader Romulo Betancourt as its first president, Venezuela became a democracy. Thanks to its oil wealth, it continued to enjoy prosperity for the 2–3 decades that followed, until 1981, when oil prices began to decline due to Middle Eastern politics. Venezuela had never diversified its economy, and it had accumulated an enormous amount of debt during its heyday, so things took a turn for the worse. Along came the populist (and popular) military leader Hugo Chavez, who was elected president in 1998. Inflation was out of control, unemployment was high, the economy was teetering and Chavez had promised to significantly increase social services for all citizens, even though the country’s ability to pay for it was swiftly declining. As part of his agenda, Chavez nationalized huge swaths of the economy, including: the oil industry, agriculture (including millions of acres of land), the banks, the cement industry, the glass and steel making industries, telecom, electricity, transportation, and more.

What this means is that Chavez literally expropriated the physical assets of the private companies in these industries. In other words, the property was owned privately and then it was owned by the government. He just took it all. Many of these companies were foreign, some American, it didn’t matter. One day they enjoyed private ownership and control of their buildings, factories, equipment and land and the next day they didn’t. Now THAT, my friends, is socialism.

Now to be fair, the various economies of the world exist in a spectrum. No economy is purely socialist or purely capitalistic (including our own). Most economies are mixed, with elements of both socialism and capitalism. And when you introduce governments, legal systems and politics, the waters get even murkier. But the singular primary characteristic that defines “socialism,” and always has defined it, is common ownership of the means of production. And that is what Hugo Chavez accomplished in Venezuela.

So let’s go back to where we started and put this in today’s political context. I have been following politics my whole life with varying degrees of intensity depending on the issues of the day. Let’s just say that since 2016 I’ve been following very closely. And never in my life have I heard a serious politician from the left propose a policy or articulate an idea that comes even remotely close to socialism. Nor have I heard a politician from the right accurately label something an opponent has said as socialist. And I listen pretty closely to both sides. To my knowledge, not one person of influence is proposing that the government expropriate private property (with one exception, see * below). And yet, the word “socialist” gets hurled incessantly, every day, in every medium, and in any context.

With that said, now that we have established what “socialism” is, it might be helpful to talk about what socialism is not. As much as members of one party would like it to be, socialism is not defined by high taxes, entitlement programs or government regulation. It’s not about the size of the government. It is true that Hugo Chavez’s Valenzuela had entitlement programs and government regulation — but those traits by themselves did not make Chavez a socialist. To put this in today’s political context, here is a brief list of hot button issues that are commonly labeled, erroneously, as socialist:

• healthcare for all is not socialist
• green energy is not socialist
• wearing a mask is not socialist (nor is asking other people to wear one)
• higher taxes for the rich is not socialist
• common sense gun control is not socialist
• police reform is not socialist
• equal rights for all is not socialist
• not even free college is socialist
• and most importantly, common decency and civility are not socialist

You may agree with these things or you may not. You make think they are stupid ideas, and they may be, but one thing they are not is socialist, because they do not involve common ownership of the means of production. And to be clear, I am not arguing for or against any of these ideas (except the last one, which I feel pretty strongly about), so please don’t reply to this post with your argument for the 2nd Amendment or against Obamacare. This post is about the use of the word “socialism” and not about any specific policy or idea.

Now that we have a better understanding of what socialism is and what it is not, can we agree that nobody in this country is proposing socialist ideas and just take it off the table altogether so that we can focus on the issues instead of dismissing people we don’t agree with by simply hurling blanket insults at them?

Yes? Good. And thank you.

*Note: I said earlier that nobody with any serious influence is proposing that the government expropriate private property, with one exception. The exception I was referring to is the guy who wants the government to usurp private land along the US-Mexico border in order to build a wall.