Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock has heard some pretty nasty things about socialism lately. We think we understand it, based on the rhetoric we are deluged with every day. We hear that socialism is the road to communism, where the government dominates every citizen's private lives, telling us where to work, when to work, who we should marry, and so on.
The truth is quite different. Would it surprise you to know that America already is a socialist nation? Or that, in fact, capitalism depends on socialism to survive?
To find the real truth, and get past the misconceptions and propaganda, we Americans have to first realize that we don't really understand socialism at all. Then, we have to ask ourselves a question: What is socialism, really?
At its core, socialism is a vital need for every community, from cities and towns to great big continent-spanning nations. It is the pooling of resources into a communal fund in order to do something that no individual can do alone. Socialism, simply, is providing a service to a community at community expense.
In fact, every modern nation in existence today is socialist, to some degree or another. It is not a "necessary evil", as some would say, but an immense benefit; socialism is the entire reason that humans began living in communities to begin with, way back at the dawn of recorded history.
Despite what propagandists on the right have to say about it, even they are strongly in favor of socialism: every one of them proudly wears their pro-military status on their sleeve. That's right having a standing military is a function of socialism.
It is the veritable definition of socialism: the entire community pays for the service of soldiers because the entire community benefits. Providing for the common defense is one of the oldest applications of socialism. Even in the pre-civilized era of humanity, everyone who could contribute to a community's defense, did.
Socialism provides the mechanism by which nearly all of our most vital community services operate. Local fire departments, police forces, schools, libraries, highways, sewer systems virtually every aspect of community living, all those things that make life in a modern civilized society possible, are all the result of socialism.
Opponents of socialism are quick to bring up some of socialisms more questionable applications: inflated bureaucracies, excessive federal agencies, and committees without end. All of that government red tape is every entrepreneur's worst nightmare, and all of it is the result of socialism. It is true; every government function (or dysfunction, as the case may be) is because of socialism.
However, without socialism, there would be no government at all. Is there anyone who would contend that we would be better off with no government whatsoever? Could we survive, as a nation, with no central authority to support our military? With no law-making body to protect us (even if it is sometimes overprotective)?
Even those dreaded regulations have their place, as shown by the recent economic disaster. With no element of socialism to temper the "invisible hand" of the "free market", corruption and greed would quickly devour and destroy our society.
Free enterprise alone cannot provide for all of our needs. The current state of our healthcare system is a prime example. Unlike fire and police services, medicine remains our nation's last holdout of a vital emergency service that remains in the hands of capitalism. Even with semi-socialist programs like Medicare and Medicaid, millions of Americans are left without the ability to receive necessary medical care.
With high drug costs and expensive physicians and specialists, many of our people are left out in the cold. Only in America, of all the advanced modern nations, are citizens left to die for the crime of simply being uninsured and even those with insurance are forced to pay high premiums for the service.
A now-famous line, coined in "The Case for Universal Healthcare", that perfectly describes the problem, is this: industrialized healthcare is not "for people", it is "for profit".
Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism: it isn't about making a profit; it is about providing a service to all the members of a community. Everyone pays, because everyone benefits. In truth, no one who understands socialism is against it. The arguments are really all about its application.
It is a very common misconception (and widely propagandized fear) that socialism automatically means government control. Should the corrupt (yet frequently re-elected) representatives of the people control large portions of our economy? Of course not but representative control is not a necessity of socialism. However, is it any wiser to leave our vital services in the hands of equally corrupt private industries?
Are we to believe that a group of people who are not public servants, who are not answerable to any over-reaching authority or ethical standard, would somehow be better for users of a particular service?
Government control isn't always a good thing, but neither is private control. As with most things, the rational answer lies in moderation. The truth is that socialism does not require government control, just that a service or industry be funded by the community as a whole. The easiest way to do that is often to have a government administer the process of that funding, but direct control is not needed.
Take the healthcare debate, for an example: The argument against socialism here is: "Who would want Congress telling your doctor what's medically best for you?" The truth is that such a level of government involvement isn't practical, nor is it required. In many nations that already have universal healthcare, the doctor still decides what is best; the state just pays the bill.
In fact, what is our present system but a situation where a collective of ultra-rich money-hungry executives dictate how your medical care will be handled? Is it really any better to have a Kenneth Lay telling your doctor how to treat you than a Barack Obama?
At least government representatives are answerable to their constituents every so often what can an angry public do about a corrupt totalitarian HMO? How is it better that necessary care be denied to dying people for the benefit of a corporation's own bottom line?
Would anyone rather die when they could live, knowing their sacrifice makes an already wealthy person even wealthier? Would you choose such a fate, in the name of capitalism? Would you condemn your child to die for a rich man's greed? Is that patriotism?
Surely, there is no one who really believes that we should be rid of our military. Surely, there is no one who would contend that we would be better off without police to enforce our laws. Surely, no one would ever believe that our fire services should be returned to free market control, where any building who's owner hadn't paid a premium was allowed to burn, as was the case during the early days of our nation. Nor would anyone claim that any of those community-paid services would be improved if they were privatized.
Where capitalism supplies the motive and mechanism to grow and improve a society, socialism provides the foundation on which every society is built. Without socialism, every one of us would be entirely on our own.
So, really, the question is not "Is socialism wrong?" but "What's wrong with socialism?" We already use it. We already depend on it. And, whether we know it or not, every one of us is already in favor of it. We are a socialist nation.