Clarifying socialism

Dear editor:

A lot of comments on Facebook and other social media and in letters to the editor of many newspapers are being made about the evils of “socialism.” It has in recent months become a “catchword” in politics. Much of that being written and said is totally incorrect about the meaning of the word.

Allow me to quote from the reputable “Oxford Desk Encyclopedia of World History”: Socialism is a political theory of social organization advocating “limits” on the private ownership of industry. It covers a wide range of positions from “communism” at one extreme to “social democracy” at the other. Most socialists believe that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange to ensure a more equitable division of a nation’s wealth, in the form of state ownership of industry, or ownership by the workers themselves. Social democracy supports capitalism along with various programs, like “welfare programs and social security programs, along with guaranteed health programs shared in cost by citizens.”

It is plain to those in the know that our country began adding social programs during the 1930s, a period known as the Great Depression. The first, Old Age Survivors Insurance (now known as Social Security) began in 1935, a program paid for through workers’ contributions. Welfare programs, like the Food Stamp program, have been added, paid for with tax money from citizens.

Medicare Care was added in the 1960s, after much disagreement in Congress, paid for through workers’ contributions and business contributions. Medicaid was later added for poverty-stricken and paid for by citizen taxes. There is a current discussion in politics that Medicare should be made universal, or, argues another side that it should be improved and extended, still paid for by workers’ contribution. These various programs make our country a “social democracy” but not a “socialist” country in the full sense of the word “socialism.”

It is extremely misleading for ads, billboards, and social media comments to use the word “socialism” in a universal manner. A friend of mine who contributes a Sunday column to this paper discusses “socialism” as something that would morally bankrupt the United States in the Oct. 4 issue, 7A. He quotes a common definition of “socialism,” but he cites the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela as socialist countries, writing that we can see that socialism has left nothing but disaster in its wake.” I have no argument with the gist of his statement, but the first four of those five countries were and are “communist,” the extreme of “socialism.” Making inclusive statements about “socialism” in this manner presents an incomplete picture. And for those concerned about religion as a part of socialism, it is not banned as it is in communist countries. Even in communist countries a certain amount of religion is allowed, though it is controlled by the state heavily.

These words are written as an attempt to clarify, not confuse, nor to argue one position or the other. I am an American, believing in capitalism, but acknowledging that social programs can and do work well in balancing our economy. Putting the state in control of the entire economy would likely fail and not be what our founders promoted in our Constitution. John W. “Doc” Crawford Hot Springs