Some May Ask, “What is Socialism?”
A Socialist America may be upon us. Some may ask, “What is socialism”? 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 the creation of an egalitarian society. Class. Who can pronounce this word? Egalitarianism comes from the French language and means égal, meaning equal. This is a political doctrine that states that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large. In actual practice, one may be considered an egalitarian in most areas listed above, even if not subscribing to equality in every possible area of individual difference.
Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx stated that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.
Let me explain more clearly. Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the private sector rather than by government. So we are possibly in a capitalistic society now?! Of course, the next step is socialism. As of January 20, 2009, we will be in the area of CHANGE! What is yours will be mine. Many people have the idea that they can sit back and let the government pay all their bills, all because of CHANGE. Kind of like Robin Hood…rob from the rich and give to the poor?
So what does all of this mean in the Christian world, Christian churches, Christian schools? Prayer has been taken out of public schools. Bibles have been prohibited. While Christians are always eager to help others, while non-Christians are not likely to be eager to help. Beware, they may become eager to take what you have. There will be no Christian schools to teach academics and the Word of God. We will be like the Russian Christians. Churches may be outlawed so the need for ”underground” churches would have to be started. My daddy would always tell me to study God’s Word and memorize the Scriptures because there may come a day when soldiers would come to our homes and take all of our Bibles. At that time, I did not believe it. But now, I am beginning to see that this may be coming soon.
o� we�� �� is very different than…
Socialism
Socialism can be provided with a blanket definition that states that the means of production will not be owned by individuals (“Capitalists”) but by some other group (in Syndicalism, that group is all the workers in a given company – in more pure Socialism, everything is publicly owned). It also features a larger number of social programs, where more aspects of life are readily available for individuals – for example, health care may become a guarantee for all individuals, and would be publicly owned. Higher education (college) may become a publicly guaranteed opportunity for all people.
Additional things that may or may not be a part of Socialism include the elimination of privately held banks (all banks would become publicly owned), inheritance, housing, exploitation through wage labor, or any private property. Communism, which can be seen as a more extreme and republican version of Socialism would, by its nature, include full public ownership of property, elimination of inheritance, elimination of wage labor, and elimination of private ownership.
Market socialism provides a notable exception to this definition, allowing for individuals to own the means of production in much of the market, but provides public ownership of “key portions” of the market (with key portions being only loosely defined). There is some debate as to whether this form of socialism is really socialism (as it can also be seen as a mixed government with the balance of the scales tipped more toward socialism).
So, there are our definitions! Back to the question at hand:
Is Obama a Socialist?
What would make Obama a socialist?
He believes in increasing regulation in certain industries (health care, finance, etc.). Regulation is a mixed government philosophy. Public ownership is a socialist philosophy. In this respect, he believes in amixed government.
He believes in more opportunities for individuals in lower income to receive an education and SBA (as well as other Government subsidized or granted) loans. Subsidization is a mixed government philosophy. Egalitarian opportunity (where it would become guaranteed for all regardless of income level) is asocialist philosophy. In this respect, he believes in a mixed government.
He believes in what we call “re-distribution of wealth” (increased taxation of the wealthy, decreased taxation of the poor, for social programs primarily benefiting the poor). This is a liberal view in mixed governmentphilosophy. Welfare programs and other social programs (including publicly owned programs like public education) are a mixed government ideology. Socialist philosophy takes a more preventative carephilosophy which eliminates the need for expansive welfare systems by eliminating the social constructs which create the poverty which requires them. (As far as most socialists are concerned, liberality is an attempt to medicate symptoms that fails to cure the disease). In this respect, he is a liberal individual within mixed government.
Obama’s foreign policy does not protect big business interests as well as previous administrations may have, but the presence in foreign nations (which many socialists, including myself, would declare an imperialist presence) indicates that he is not looking to truly defeat these actions which support Capitalism. The fact that regulatory principles are being introduced rather than real change, reformist principles rather than systemic alteration, and so forth, all indicate that what we see with Obama is simply a more liberal view on Mixed Government, which places the balance more on the “socialist end” of the stick – more reform, more social programs, and so forth.
In summary, while Obama may be introducing more socialist aspects and regulatory principles into the US Government, he’s far from Socialist. More publicly owned aspects doesn’t indicate a publicly owned means of production (i.e., socialism), but rather, a shift in the exact balance of the mixed government.
Tags: Education, Policy, Socialism, socialist
Leave a Reply