Socialism

.
Newsweek, Sean Hannity, Lawrence O'Donnell, Bill Maher and Bill O Reilly are in the process of trying to change the meaning of this word.

Maher's argument in O'Donnell's piece above is a fitting example of his nonthinking: In Europe Socialism is "just" another political party he says. "Socialism doesn’t mean that we’re against making a profit; it just means that government takes over certain things like hospitals, the prisons and the military and schools that shouldn’t be run for profit."

I think that most Americans would have trouble making a good definition. They know that it is related to communism but are not sure how but they are sure that they don't want either. The big difference is that Socialism is an economic system only. It can be combined with various kinds of political systems. You can have democratic socialism (I believe that Sweden is the closest that the world has to this.) or you can have a one party dictatorship plus socialism (= communism in practice). That last system, communism, was tried out in the Soviet Union. You probably know how that worked out?

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.

So the first simple fact is that O'Donnell, Hannity, and Newsweek and the others are simply liars or fools (I always use the mathematical “or” which is inclusive, i.e. it includes the possibility that they are both liars and fools.)
I think that those on the right are lying because they know about the aversion Americans have towards even the word socialism. and they are trying to hang the label any of their opponents who want to have a government that is larger than the one that they want.
It is not as clear to me why the left is coming on like this. I suppose it is to make what they are doing seem less ominous. They want an even larger government (" = more socialism”) and perhaps they think if we believe that we are already socialists then we won't be as bothered by the growth of government. If Newsweek is right and whether you want 20% of GDP or 40% of GDP to go to the government you are still a socialist, then we are just quibling over numbers. No big deal.

It seems to me that it would be much more accurate to identify what percentage of the GDP you would advocate being collected by the governments and used to pay bills or distributed to the populace. Ayn Rand would say 5 or 6% to pay for the military plus a little bit. I suppose that a true socialist would advocate almost 100% (from each according to his ability – to each according to his need).

My percentage would be about 40. So I will call myself a 40% socialist.
.