Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Defining the Times

A lesson today for all of you who might be confused by the rhetoric being tossed about so liberally in the news of late.

From Merriam-Webster online:

Socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Communism
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

Nazism
: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer

Now many pundits and talking heads have been spouting that President Obama is a socialist, a Nazi, a fascist. Well I will admit that in some people's eyes the socialist label might have some sticking power to the current administration, not that I have any problem with that personally, I am all for there being less of a yawning gap between the haves and have nots. Plus Sweden doesn't look so bad and they are socialists.

But the latter two labels really rub me the wrong way. Obama and his administration are not fascists or Nazis and while the two groups may both espouse authoritarian rule, their goals for that rule were different in my eyes, as were their ideology of why such rule was necessary.

Now listen, I didn't major in political science, so maybe I am missing some small nugget of correlation between the two, but in the broader range of things, all these people on the right aim to do is frighten the beejesus out of people by invoking Nazis and Fascists and the like.

So far as all this hullabaloo about the President indoctrinating school children today during his speech, well give me a break. President Obama is not the first president to address schools and he won't be the last (Remember Dubya reading My Pet Goat? Anyone??). It appears to me that a speech about personal responsibility, staying in school and trying to get ahead is not even remotely rooted in socialism or any ideology that is centered on the government owning the means of production. No in fact, those all seem like tools that might come in handy for this kind of society:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Yep, CAPITALISM.

2 comments:

creative kerfuffle said...

ok, you know i'm not political at all but i don't want to be socialist. of course i don't want people to not have health care or to starve or for kids not to get education, however, i also don't feel like people who really work hard and save and pay their bills should be punished financially for doing so. if people don't even try to help themselve, then hell no, i don't think that yawning gap between the haves and the have nots bothers me one bit. (gawd, i didn't mean to sound bitchy, but i get tired of paying taxes for people who aren't even pulling their own weight)

broad minded said...

I guess I don't view it as punishment. After all we are already paying a lot of taxes to fund medicare and social security and unemployment (which unfortunately we are both benefiting from at the moment, through no fault or laziness on our part). I would rather pay a bit more and help people, and myself, have more options or for that matter AN OPTION when it comes to healthcare. And I don't believe that Obama wants us to become socialist, but even if he did, again, I refer to our tall, blonde Scandinavian friends — the Swedes are both socialist and capitalist. So the two aren't mutually exclusive.