Define Socialism

Discussions about socialism have been in vogue since Obama became President Obama. Many of those discussions reveal disagreement on what constitutes socialism regarding Obama’s socialist agenda for America. I want to dwell on that aspect of the discussion, the definition of socialism.

I am weary of repeated attempts to establish an agreed upon definition of socialism. You will discover, as I have, that liberals and conservatives define socialism differently.

To that end, I only support governments whose main function is to protect private ownership of capital and property rights. All definitions used to describe other governments is of no interest to me. I will not support government that does not protect property rights regardless of all manner of noble accomplishments that may be cited.

The progressives have influenced liberals that capitalism doesn’t exist under socialism when of course it does. The difference between capitalism under socialism and capitalism under Americanism lies in the ownership and control of the capital. In Socialism, the state owns or controls capital via laws and regulations. In Americanism, the individual experiences private ownership and control of property.

“Liberalism” was transformed in meaning in the 1920s (according to William Safire) from American conservatism to very nearly its opposite (socialism).

American conservatism is, IMHO, best defined by T. Roosevelt’s “man in the arena” speech.

From Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sarbonne:
There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
OTOH socialism is best understood as the theory that the critic - in the person of the journalism monopoly, and in the person of politicians who toady to the journalism monopoly - deserves the credit, and the man who is actually in the arena deserves only to be second-guessed and despised. This results in writers and journalists such as V. Lenin and B. Mussolini arrogating to themselves the authority over the entire country on the basis of their ability to snow “the masses.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.