Nation Isn't 'Socialist'

Mike Clifford's letter (Public Viewpoint, July 25) uses the word socialism to mean anything he dislikes. A better definition is "an economic theory that the means of production should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." If you're talking about nationalized oil production as in Norway and Brazil, or setting up a municipally-owned electric utility, as in more than 2,000 American cities and towns, then you can use the word socialism.

Socialism and capitalism are not polar opposites, and no countries on Earth are 100 percent socialist or 100 percent capitalist. They are all "mixed economies" with both public and private sectors. Cooperatives are a significant fraction of business and agriculture in many countries, but they are neither socialist nor capitalist. Then there is oligopoly, in which a few businesses control most of the market, limiting access to newcomers. This is sometimes called a shared monopoly. About half the U.S. economy is oligopolies--is that still capitalism, or is it something else?

Socialism is not the same as a welfare state. Capitalism can coexist with a strong social safety net. Countries such as Denmark and New Zealand have strong welfare programs, yet are judged friendlier to business than the United States, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation's ranking of economic freedom.

Government intervention is not the same thing as socialism. Take this very hypothetical example: Suppose we elected a president and Congress that immediately took us into a war with Iran or Syria or some other country, while passing a new version of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts that imposed severe restrictions on free speech. Suppose this administration also passed laws discriminating against non-Christians. This would certainly be an over-reaching government, yet with nothing socialist about it.

Mr. Clifford uses the example of the Jamestown and Plymouth settlements in the 17th century but he is really wrenching history to use the term socialism for either. Both settlements suffered great hardships including disease and conflicts with local Indians. Many of the Jamestown settlers were upper-class gentlemen without practical skills and unaccustomed to manual labor. None of the problems in either colony were remotely connected with "socialism."

As for Social Security, it is not a socialist program nor is it bankrupting the country. According to its 2013 Trustees Report, Social Security is fully solvent until 2033. Removing the cap on the payroll tax so that higher earners pay at the same rate as others could ensure solvency indefinitely.

There is nothing socialist about "Obamacare" either. Doctors are private, hospitals are private and insurance companies are private. Examples of real socialized health care are the British National Health Service and similar systems in Finland, Spain, and Israel, also the medical departments of the U.S. military services.

Too many of us turn everything into polar opposites and don't define their terms. No wonder it's so hard to have rational political debate.

Coralie Koonce

Fayetteville

Commentary on 08/07/2014

Upcoming Events