How I learned to love socialism (and still do)

A serious young socialist

No one wants to be labeled a dirty "socialist" these days. If "liberal" or "right-winger" isn't bad enough, socialist implies not only an extreme, but someone who has lost touch with reality to the point that they're a threat to the rest of us. In fact the Merriam's definition of socialism tells us that it's one step away from communism:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

And nobody likes a commie!

So I say this with trepidation: socialism has been very good to me. I may even be a socialist. But it's not my fault - it all began before I was born. Let me explain.

I grew up in northeast Ohio - in the Western Reserve part of what was called the Northwest Territory by our Founding Fathers. Much of this western land was reserved specifically for New Englanders who had lost much through their service in the Revolutionary War. With Continental currency being worthless, this was a just means of compensating them for their sacrifice. Some part of that land - the "Firelands" - was set aside to Connecticut residents who's property had been torched by the British.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 granted certain rights - and limitations - to how this land that was to become 5 states would to be governed - a charter of sorts. Among the limitations - there would be no slavery; no lands and property would be "taken from the Indians without their consent" (oh well). And schools would provide education for all. Within a year of its passage, it was contractually specified "that a section in each township be reserved for common schools."* For these and other provisions, The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 "stands alongside the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence as a bold assertion of the rights of the individual."*

But how can this possibly be supporting the rights of the individual? Our early government took collective ownership of the land and administered the redistribution of property to a designated class of individuals (veterans). Further, what about people who wanted to educate their children privately, or at home? "Outside of New England, there was then no such thing in the United States as a system of state-supported schools of any kind."* Here we have an early example of East coast elites legislating how education is administered, and even forcing all citizens to pay for it! 

Approximately 180 years later, I was enrolled in Hinckley Elementary school in Ohio. Arguably, public education was first tried in the state of Ohio through the redistribution of property and by government edict. And I and my classmates were the beneficiaries all those years later.

Me and my comrades

Growing up, I continued to benefit from the same socialist principles - many, ironically, attributed to America's first uber-capitalist, Benjamin Franklin! He was so rich that he retired from running his printing and distribution network at the age of 42, and dedicated the rest of his life to the cause of American freedom. And socialism.

He tried to put booksellers and publishers out of business by creating the first public library - collective ownership, administration and distribution of books. And if you were thinking of providing firefighting services to your fellow citizens at the time, he took that away, too, by establishing neighborhood volunteer firefighting units. And if you wanted to protect your family and property from loss, he perfected the concept of insurance: spreading individuals' risk among many by accumulating their resources. Some of these services were, and still can be provided privately, but the concept remains: it strikes us as only logical that our standard of living is improved when wealth/resources/property are pooled and redistributed for the benefit of all.

From America Is Already Socialist, And That's a Good Thing:

In his 2019 State of the Union speech (and his personal campaigning throughout his presidency), Donald Trump proclaimed the US "will never be a socialist country." Well, newsflash:

The United States—like every other country with an advanced economy . . . is already a partly socialist country, with a mixed economy and many government programs that serve the public good.

By this definition, Social Security is a "socialist" program: it's a government-run pension system that cuts out private money managers. Medicare - a single-payer, government-run health insurance program for those over 65 - is too. Medicare-For-All would simply extend this to the rest of the population.

The minimum wage, maximum hour, and child labor laws that go back over a century are likewise "socialist" programs, in that the government intervenes in the capitalist market to require employers to meet minimum standards that might not be met in a pure, unregulated “free” market. Agricultural and energy subsidies are likewise socialist programs. I could go on and on.

So we all have some socialist in our blood, and somewhere we are all grateful for it. And we're definitely better off because of it.

The argument we're having then, is "when is socialism appropriate,

and who do we trust to administer it?" - NOT that it's a bad thing

Like most everything else, nothing is black and white - socialism isn't BAD! It's a matter of degree. Can't we all have this argument respectfully?

For my next post, I think I'll propose that any life-sustaining benefit available to some, should be available to all if we are to call ourselves a just society. But that's for another day.

* The Pioneers: The Heroic Story of the Settlers Who Brought the American Ideal West, David McCullough, 2019