Column: Stop whining about socialism

By Jordan Paul

Published Feb. 26, 2010

I've become progressively irritated as conservatives, especially those of the Tea Party Patriot variety, continue to whine about how President Barack Obama is leading us down the road to utter destruction. What's their favorite tactic? Rousing Cold War-era fear toward phrases such as "socialism" to attack initiatives. I'd like to focus on how this brand of conservatives (indeed, I would never attack an entire spectrum) doesn't really understand politics or economics.

Let's begin by discussing the political aspect. By definition, democracy is rule of the people. This means the people can do about anything they want. We have measures to protect minority rights, but these are inherently limited. If we don't like something or the construct of something, we have the means to eliminate or change it. Here are two examples: If the populace really hated something, such as alcohol, they could make it illegal. In fact, they could then go about making it legal again within a few years if they so desired.

Or, let's say the people didn't like the structure of something in the Constitution, such as the indirect election of senators, they could alter the document to reflect this. I'm alluding to the concept called the "tyranny of the majority."

Following this logic, nothing is sacrosanct due to our ability to write new laws, alter old ones and interpret both. In reality, the minority has no guarantees. Although this might seem frightening, many of our nation's finest moments came from this method, including the abolition of slavery. In other words, socialism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive.

Now let's move to economics. Although we have one of the more classical liberal-oriented economic systems in the developed world, we do not have a true capitalist economy.

Industrial Great Britain epitomized the zenith of capitalism. It sucked. To name a few problems, it had child labor, unrestricted work week, subsistence wages, no worker's compensation or safety standards and no consumer protection. These conditions caused Marx to write that the working class would revolt. Fortunately, a compromise was found: socialism. Essentially, due to the gross inequities and occasional market failures produced by an unrestrained free market, a system of redistribution is necessary. I feel I might need to spell this out for the more dense conservative readers. If you don't redistribute wealth, the working class will become so poor it either revolts or elects representatives to exercise the tyranny of the majority to tax the piss out of the wealthy.

We have additional historical examples. For instance, strikes are the base weapon of labor to improve its condition. In the past, it was not uncommon for strikes to evolve into riots. What's the logical extension of a riot? Suddenly, the prospect of revolt isn't so absurd. Therefore, it shouldn't be shocking the position of labor steadily improved in light of this analysis. Why else would we see reform? Altruism?

What does this mean?

First, realize democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive. If the people choose to support socialist policies, they can't, by definition, be undemocratic.

Second, recognize we do not live in a true capitalist system. We are paid a minimum wage and we have a 40-hour work week. We have work safety standards and worker's compensation. We have universal public education (one of Marx's 10 demands in the Communist Manifesto) and a host of consumer protection measures.

Conservatives like to ignore the plethora of advantages brought by progressivism. Although we use free markets to dictate supply and demand, we have socialist policies in place to redistribute the revenue generated from these transactions.

There are always multiple points of view on a public policy item. Unsurprisingly, there are a variety of legitimate attacks that can be made on the Obama administration and Nancy Pelosi's Congress. Throwing around the word socialism (or acting like it's something new) is not included. I suggest before swelling up in indignant self-righteousness, you develop an informed critique rather than parroting Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity.