Have you heard or read words about "socialism" lately? Indiana Senator Todd Young’s organization sent me an alarming text message this week: "Socialism is no longer a fringe idea on the left. It's winning primaries and raising millions." This was followed by a link to a site where I could agree or disagree that "socialism is a growing threat in America" and donate to the senator's ongoing efforts to protect us.
I also read a recent column by conservative commentator Cal Thomas citing Fox News interviews with people from four different countries where socialism failed and citizens suffered because of it: Cuba, Venezuela, China, and the Soviet Union (which hasn't existed for 35 years).
Can we look briefly at socialism? Wikipedia describes it as an economic and political system "characterized by social ownership of the means of production as opposed to private ownership." Instead of large companies being owned by individuals, they are owned by the public, the community, a collective, or a cooperative.
When I was a public library director, several people, mostly children, asked if I was the library owner and, if not, who was? I struggled to explain that, like public schools, public libraries (along with towns, cities, counties, and fire districts) are local government units, supported by taxes, regulated by the government, with no individual owner. Is that socialism? Would we be better served by privately-owned institutions designed to make a profit for their owners? America has experimented with private for-profit prisons. Have these proven to be inherently better than community-owned units overseen by local government? Is that the direction we need to be moving?
As a rural dweller, my electricity comes from an R.E.M.C. (Rural Electric Membership Corporation) cooperative. My husband and I and every other customer of the local R.E.M.C. own it. It is regulated by the Indiana government, but is not part of the government. There is no owner beyond the customers profiting from the sale of electricity. Is that socialism? Should I campaign to overturn such cooperative organizations and join a big utility company designed to turn a profit for the corporate owners?
Back to Senator Young’s warning. Here in America, we have self-described "Democrat Socialists" winning not only primaries, but elections. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York, and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, are examples. Are they hoping to turn the U.S.A. into the next Venezuela or Soviet Union? Are they unaware of the disasters coming from past experiments with socialism?
Here's where things get confusing. If socialism is officially about taking the means of productions out of the hands of big corporations and private owners profiting from them, why are these Democrat Socialists so focused on things like universal health care, various forms of welfare, free education, public transportation, childcare, and elder care? Why do they talk about raising taxes on wealthy individuals and for-profit corporations in order to make society more equal? Is this a cover-up for their secret plans to take over the means of production and turn us into the next Venezuela?
When I think of socialism in America, I think of things like Medicare and Social Security (<- see the 'social' there?). Under Social Security, the government collects taxes from all workers and provides monthly checks to the elderly who are no longer able or willing to trudge off to a job every day.* Medicare is tax-supported health insurance for those same elderly people. That is the type of wealth redistribution supported by our Democrat Socialist candidates. Countries that have tax-supported health care for everyone, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Norway seem to be doing okay under those systems. A Canadian friend was shocked to learn that here in America we deal with medical billing and insurance issues while in the midst of a medical crisis. That is the case if we're fortunate enough to have insurance. People without insurance often suffer and even die because medical care is too costly for them. Is that the type of country we want to live in? Do we want a country where children go to bed hungry because single mothers can't find jobs that pay well enough to cover childcare and living expenses? Currently, our social "safety net" is being dismantled by people with excellent incomes. The changes are making life extremely difficult for people who work harder for longer hours, but make far less money than those behind the changes. Is that the direction we want to move as a society?
Last week the local newspaper published an article about the cost and difficulty of building sidewalks in small towns to give people a place to walk more safely as pedestrian fatalities increase. Is the answer for every property owner to pour a sidewalk in front of their own home and hope everyone participates? Is that the position of those who are so afraid of socialism in the U.S.?
Wealth and power go together. What we're seeing is the rich and powerful using our political system to persuade ordinary voters to vote in a way that lets the wealthy hang onto the money they have collected from all of us as overpayment for the goods and services they offer. Please, don't let people scare you into voting a certain way because they want to save those rich corporations and individuals from being required to contribute to the general welfare of our society. There is so much good we can do when we collect funds from all in proportion to their wealth and work together to benefit all. Let’s build some sidewalks!
-----
*I have heard people explain Social Security as something like a private bank account they have with the U.S. government, where they contribute funds during their years on the job that are held in trust and eventually repaid to them. That is not quite the way it works. Current workers pay into the system that supports current retirees. When you retire, you will depend on younger workers to keep the system solvent. It is a social system, not a private retirement account.
