Article-10873308 image

So, all government is an example of socialism?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
3 ½ min

One of the more ridiculous arguments out there is that all government activity is socialism. When the “snowpocalypse” hit Washington, D.C. and the rest of the East Coast, a number of socialist-friendly sites began putting out memes like this one: 

Ah, yes, because the snow plows are operated by the government they are therefore socialist. Apparently, over at The Other 98%, 6,700 people though it’s true. A lot of folks will take the argument even further. Here’s another meme example, similar arguments often show up in comments of websites and various social media pages: 

Right, so the argument is essentially that all public services provided by government are socialist.

First of all, let’s have one of the great socialists of the 20th century define socialism as Vladimir Lenin saw it:

“What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the 'first', or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production become common property, the word 'communism' is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism” (The State and Revolution)

Or

“For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly” (The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It)

It would appear that socialism is actually a bit more than just “socialist snowplows” or public schools or the post office; it is about controlling the “means of production”. Remember, the post office was created in the U.S. Constitution way back in 1789, when the founding document was ratified. We don't recall any of the Founding Fathers mentioning the term "socialism". In fact, it would be many decades before the term “socialism” entered the world stage. Setting that minor point aside, many a socialist will probably take issue with the use of Lenin, arguing that he does not accurately represent socialism. Fair enough.

Here's how the Socialist Party USA, which uses the term democratic-socialism, defines socialism:

“The Socialist Party strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control -- a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community.

Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools.  The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth.”

There it is again, controlling the “means of production” (i.e., businesses) through democracy. Snow plows may be run by the government, but that doesn’t make them socialist.

The argument that all government action is socialism really does either a disservice to those arguing for socialism or reveals the great dangers of government power: If you’re claiming that everything that government does is socialism, then you don’t get to cherry-pick the “good” while ignoring the bad.

If all government action in the United States is socialism, does that mean that when cops shoot an unarmed, black teenager it’s socialism? When public schools have a track record of under-serving minority students, is that socialism? When the government forcibly sterilizes people, as it did up until the 1970s, is that socialism? When government segregated the races, was that socialism? When government dropped atomic bombs on Japanese civilians, was that socialism? When government troops wiped out the Native Americans, was that socialism? When the government polluted the city of Flint’s public water, was that socialism?

According to the logic of the “socialist snowplows” argument, all of that is, indeed, socialism. I’m sorry, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Now, do I believe all of that is actually “socialism”? No. The socialists are clear about their definition of socialism and it involves controlling businesses and property through democratic action. Just because there is government, doesn’t make it socialism. Nonetheless, trying to be cute in order to advance your cause will eventually catch up to you.

Devin Foley

Devin Foley

Devin is the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Charlemagne Institute, which operates Intellectual Takeout, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, and the Alcuin Internship. He is a graduate of Hillsdale College where he studied history and political science. Prior to co-founding Charlemagne Institute, he served as the Director of Development at the Center of the American Experiment, a state-based think tank in Minnesota.

Devin is a contributor to local and national newspapers, a frequent guest on a variety of talk shows, such as Minneapolis' KTLK and NPR's Talk of the Nation, and regularly shares culture and education insights presenting to civic groups, schools, and other organizations. In 2011, he was named a Young Leader by the American Swiss Foundation.

Devin and his wife have been married for eighteen years and have six children. When he's not working, Devin enjoys time with family while also relaxing through reading, horticulture, home projects, and skiing and snowboarding.

Add a Comment

 

Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!

or

crauchs
-
The "socialists" are not clear about their definition of socialism. Except, by definition, that socialism is communal ownership of the means of production, which in and of itself is a broad and vague definition in two parts. 1st being communal ownership, 2nd being what means of production are. As such you have free markets on one end, and communism on the other and by their definition, everything inbetween is a varying degree of socialism, accordingly. Thats just how it is and im not sure how else to explain it. The founding fathers not calling the usps socialist is irrelevant. Especially when they arrested and imprisoned lysnader spooner for opening a competing mail service. While officially they arrested him for other "crimes" its like arresting al capone for tax evasion. Just because a specific definition wasnt used doesnt mean its a different animal. Tyranny is tyranny.
 
 

or

X