Replies

Descartes is the Father of modern philosophy. If anything he provided a basis for healthy skepticism.

I’ve thought a bit about the word “cynicism.” And I have been dissatisfied with the definitions I’ve seen, and I backed into a definition which I like better:
”the conceit that negativity is objectivity.”
The funny thing about cynicism is that if you are cynical about “A,” and if “B” is the opposite of “A,” then it is logically incoherent to be cynical about “B” as well as “A.” Rather, if you are cynical about “A” you can only be coherent if you are naive about “B.”
Point being that cynicism and naiveté, while nominally opposites, both denote certainty.
That is germane to political debate. “Liberals” (socialists) love to conflate “society” with government. That was going on all the way back in 1776:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one . . . For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest . . . — Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
To the extent that “society” and “government” are opposites, it is logical for anyone who is naive about government is to be cynical about society - and conversely. Whichever comes first, the other logically follows. And that combination seems to me to be a more general definition of “socialism” than “government ownership of the means of production,” which I view as a specific detail.
It seems logical to the socialist that the opposite of socialism must be “naiveté about society" (especially its leaders, such as businessmen and clergy) “and cynicism about government. In fact, AFAIK that would be how Karl Marx could have defined the word he coined, “capitalism.” But if that be the definition of “capitalist,” then you and I are not capitalists. Thoughtful people reject socialism and “capitalism” (as I understand Marx’s meaning of the latter). Because thoughtful people eschew naiveté. And both socialism and Marx’s “capitalism” denote naiveté - albeit about opposite things.
Skepticism is what motivates separation of powers in government. Skepticism motivates the rejection of Establishment of religion.

The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. — Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)