15 April 2009

Socialism: Look It Up

For months, opponents of the Obama administration - from top Republicans, to jowlsey radio hosts, to participants in modern-day "tea parties" - have accused the Democrats of bringing "socialism" to America.

As Paul Krugman pointed out a few days ago, nowadays "the charge of socialism is being thrown around only because “liberal” doesn’t seem to carry the punch it used to."

Since this word has gained such currency in recent political discourse, it might be worthwhile to, you know, actually... LOOK IT UP.

From Merriam-Webster:


Main Entry:
so·cial·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1837

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
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Not one of the above definitions fit the current government. From bailouts to healthcare reform, nothing the Democrats are doing involves "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution"; nor are we abolishing private property; nor are we transitioning to communism (despite the apocalyptic howling of the right-wing pundits).

With all the hot air coming out of Fox News and the "tea parties" it's been instigating, it's easy to forget that Americans - even now - have one of the lightest tax burdens of any first-world country. And that as a percentage of GDP, our federal government is smaller than those of most European countries. And that we have a lower minimum wage and fewer employee benefits than most other first-world countries.

Socialism? Are you kidding?

From Politico:

No comments: