Part I, Propaganda and Plunder,  examined how people in power abuse words by twisting them into their opposite meaning, a technique called false logic labeling or doublespeak. Doublespeak is made easier because words are tossed around whose meaning isn’t clear in the first place. Take the word “socialism”.

Here’s one dictionary definition: “a political theory advocating state ownership of industry”. While that definition is concise, it is not particularly useful since it could serve just as well to define “communism”.

Some do use those words interchangeably – some out of misfeasance and some out of ignorance – but there is, or certainly ought to be, a distinction between the two. For example, the nations of Western Europe are generally thought of as “socialistic” or “social democracies”, but few informed people would describe them as communist nations.

This confusion is due in part to classic Marxist economic theory, which holds that socialism is merely a way station on the road from capitalism to communism. Marxists assume the journey will inevitably be completed, but the social democracies of Western Europe have now enjoyed more than half-a-century at the way station, and they show little interest in continuing the journey.

The fact that hundreds of millions willingly, even more or less happily, live under socialism hasn’t deterred those with a political axe to grind. Thus we are treated to the ridiculous spectacle of the Republican National Committee insisting the Democratic Party change its name to the Democratic Socialist Party.

Those who do not learn from history

Rather than renaming the Democratic Party, perhaps these so-called “Conservatives” need to be renamed. Perhaps they should be called Consumatives, given that their political agenda favors consumption over conservation.

Certainly, the behavior of Consumatives should concern true conservatives because it sullies a worthy political philosophy. One wonders if Consumatives know any more about conservatism than they do about socialism.

Thomas Hobbes is widely regarded as the philosophical founder of modern conservative thought. His observation that life is “nasty, brutish and short” is used by some who call themselves conservatives as an excuse to behave like brutes.

But Hobbes saw his observation not as an excuse for jungle ethics, but as the very reason for government. Government was a necessary hedge against the jungle, because as he chillingly put it “even the strongest man must eventually sleep.”

Hobbes argument for government was not altruistic; it was practical. Even a king – if he wants to keep his head – cannot afford to ignore the needs of his subjects. Government that exists solely for the benefit of a despot or an oligarchy – or corporations – cannot long endure. To survive and prosper, government must benefit society as a whole, or as Hobbes deemed it, government exists to serve the commonweal.

Hobbes philosophy is reflected in the words of the Founders:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Consumatives enthusiastically support the charge to “provide for the common defense” – particularly in districts where defense contractors are head-quartered. But on the whole, they are disinclined to “promote the general welfare” – welfare having become another dirty word.

Beware the bathtub

Consumatives cling to “economic darwinism”, a jungle-ethic, survival of the fittest, virulent strain of capitalism they mistakenly call Free-Market Economics. But their ideology owes more to Ayn Rand than to Adam Smith.

Unfortunately, that ideology dominated American politics over the last three decades. It retrofitted the old Calvin Coolidge axiom that “the business of government is business” and offered up the fantastical claim that things would be perfect if government just got out of the way. As Grover Norquist infamously put it, "My goal is to cut government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

Ronald Reagan pontificated that government wasn’t the solution but the problem. What was needed was deregulation and privatization. With government out of the way, Supply-Side Economics would increase revenue while reducing taxes. Millions blithely or blindly accepted that absurd accounting, but Reagan’s future Vice-President George H. W. Bush rightly called it “Voodoo Economics”. 

In the end, Voodoo Economics led to the worst of all worlds; effective government programs were abolished or hamstrung, while reasonable government regulation was drowned in the bathtub. Meanwhile, the size and cost of government grew dramatically.

Heads I win, tails you lose

One reason Reaganomics was bound to fail is that our present system isn’t really capitalism; it’s the worst of all worlds, socialism for capitalists. Companies plunder, pollute and pull-out, taking their profits with them and leaving behind disastrous environmental and healthcare costs to be passed on to society.  Profits are privatized while costs are socialized.

As I mentioned in Part I, Propaganda and Plunder, George W. Bush’s “Clear Skies Initiative” was a glaring example of this short-sighted, jungle-ethic capitalism. It permitted whole mountain-tops to be removed in West Virginia and Tennessee to increase profits for coal-mining companies. But it did nothing to address the horrors they left behind.

We see this socialism for capitalists as well in our current financial crisis, where risk is being passed on to the public while the reward remains with those whose irresponsible behavior caused the crisis. Trillions were wagered on what were little more than casino bets.

But thanks to the machinations of Henry Paulsen and others, the Casino Economy has been replaced by the Coin-Flip Economy. For financial executives, it’s heads I win, tails you lose.

This kind of “socialism”, this unfair sharing of burden and profit, is something that ought to concern every citizen. But sadly, many citizens vote against their own self-interest because they are deceived by pundits and politicians who abuse words like “socialism”.

The persistence of myth

As I discussed in my post Unmasking American Myths, these gullible citizens are also blinded by myths left over from our frontier days . One of these myths is that of fierce independence and rugged individualism, a myth that underlies the belief that in this country anyone can become obscenely wealthy simply through hard work, grit and determination.

That belief persists – despite abundant evidence to the contrary – because a few talented, dedicated and – dare I say it – lucky individuals sometimes succeed in spite of their disadvantaged background. But their success proves only that they are exceptions to the rule.

Those who cling to this myth need to understand a simple mathematical absolute:  Not everyone can be exceptional.

Or to put it another way; Barack Obama is the exception; George W. Bush is the rule.

For citizens who are not wealthy and well-connected, government is the solution, not the problem, especially when it comes to protection from the wretched excesses of corporate capitalism.

Socialism may not be perfect, but until someone comes up with a better alternative than corporate capitalism, it will have to do. In the meantime,  it's high time we stopped treating socialism like a social disease.

©2009 Tom Cordle

(Thanks to the brilliant Sandra Miller Stephens for coining "tonguage".)