What is socialism?

In my mind, one of the most abused words in politics in socialism. "Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which essential industries, social services, property and the distribution of wealth are publically and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all." I don't think you will find a better definition of socialism. I also don't know too many real socialists in US politics, though I am sure there are some. Have you heard of anyone who believes that all essential industries and services, etc. should be owned and controlled? There are a likely still a few Marxists but if the commentators are honest, there are essentially none in mainstream US politics.

So what is this "socialism" that some use in their criticisms? That is more difficult to pin down. It is apparently tied to those who want to apply controls to some industries and services or have the government own some of them. On the extreme opposite end of the scale are those who want Army, police and perhaps some emergency services only. This is the libertarian edge of US politics. Do they really want to eliminate all government programs? Are all regulations to be repealed? What about child labor laws? Should Medicaid be dissolved along with social security? Most don't go that far, though the reality is that socialism has no single definition. It is normally defined as someone wanting more or different government controls or wanting more or different ownership of certain services than I do!! It is a very personal definition, and, in my opinion, useless and subject to extreme abuse.. and abused it is!!!

It becomes a proxy for what I dislike, yet it allows for no conversation since it is so individually defined. It requires a lengthy conversation with the individual to understand. For that reason, I will not use the word, even where I disagree with a proposed level of regulation or disagree with some extension of government owned services. For me it is a matter of principle and good communication to avoid that term.

So how would a political conversation be better handled and served? Let's take the claim that Obama is a socialist and zero in on the area of health care policy. Medicare is the closest to true socialism that we have. Even there, it is really a government based insurance program rather than true socialized medicine. Does the government own the Medicaid clinics? Does the government pay the workers directly? The answer is no for Medicaid though there are socialized medical services in the Armed Services and at the state or county level in some cases. Is it socialism to NOT want to dissolve the Medicaid insurance program? What about NOT dissolving the state or country clinics Is it socialism to have Army doctors or should they all be civilian private contractors, except on the field of battle? No the reality is that in most cases, people are not calling for a total dissolution of Medicaid, state or country clinics. Most are not calling California or Massachusetts governors socialists for their experiment in extending health care. Socialism often becomes any attempt at the Federal level to extend controls, services or even insurance regulation. Would it not better to be specific, articulate and descriptive of what is opposed and what is proposed? Why should we tolerate the use of the word socialism that so poorly serves communication or the democratic process.. though it does serve the problematic side of politics. Would not specific criticism better serve everyone?

Now don't get me wrong. I believe the time is now for a national approach to health care reform. The experts say that extending coverage is the easiest thing to do, but that addressing costs is the hardest. This includes John McCain's advisors.. I can give you details and references if you like.... Politically though a national approach to extending coverage, even through insurance and market reform is the hardest. Republicans are basically saying that they want no national solution to health care, and that anything else is "socialism". Unfortunately that is never clearly spelled out. It is possible that a national standard and perhaps some infrastructure to support medical records might be supported. I suspect that even there it might fail among Republicans due to deep fears about "the mark of the beast" and Big Brother. So, though I am glad for specific proof of proposals say by John McCain to the contrary, I don't believe he has any proposals for federal solutions to the health care crisis, much less a comprehensive plan. If a national approach to healthcare is socialism, then I support socialized medicine of that sort....but again what is support is far from classic socialism or the single payer system as is in Canada (most of the rest have a hybrid.. Canada is unique in that private medical care for traditional medicine is illegal.. oh I guess Cuba is also in that camp). I support a national program. If someone doesn't, I suggest they should say so specifically and not say "I don't want socialized medicine".

I should end by bringing up another area of "socialism". I think any of us who have raised children are concerned about the secular nature of public school education, especially though of us whose children did attend public schools. I also admire those such as our pastor's family who successfully homeschooled bright, generally well-adjusted children. Nonetheless it may or may not surprise you to know that they are a number of Christians who are hoping for the total and tragic collapse of the public school system. I guess this is socialism to them, though they seem to use different terms. I will leave this one for your own analysis. Personally I would rather pray for, support ministries to and support believers teaching in the public school system.

Ray