The Dangers of Socialism

The word “socialism” is tossed around so often, usually with strong negative connotations, that it seems appropriate to catch our breath and examine the term and application.

Socialism is an economic system in which goods and services are provided through a central system of cooperative and/or government ownership rather than through competition and a free market system.  (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/socialism.html)

Simple.  It is not free enterprise.  It is not privately owned and funded.  Employees work for the community.  The government dictates the goods and services.  It is funded by tax dollars, not supply and demand.  It is not a totalitarian government.  It is an economic term, not a political term.

Some examples might be helpful.  In my small rural town we have several feed stores.  They are owned and operated by individuals (or partnerships, or corporations).  The owners decide what goods will be offered and at what price, and the owners decide whether to hire more people or not and what to pay them.  Free enterprise.  Not socialism.  Increasing or decreasing government regulation of the feed stores does not make it more or less socialistic because it remains a privately owned and operated enterprise.

In my small town water emerges from my pipes when I turn on the faucet or the sprinkler or the shower or the washing machine.  I have no choice regarding the source of the water.  It is not like I can select this water company or that water company.  Everybody within the city limits gets the same water.  In fact, citizens cannot drill water wells if they live in the city and have public water available.  The cost of the water is determined by an elected governmental body.  The equipment to provide the water is owned by the local government.  The employees of this public works division are paid out of tax dollars.  The point of the operation is to provide quality water to everyone in the community, not to maximize income of the water department.  The water department in my small town meets all the criteria of a socialistic operation.  The government owns and operates the water service.  It is regulated and must meet certain standards, but what makes it socialistic is that it is publicly owned and operated.  It is a public works.

The same thing is true for our local police department, and the county sheriff’s office, and the DPS, and the Texas Rangers and the National Guard.  They are all public entities governed by elected bodies.  They are not private enterprises.  The employees are paid from tax dollars.  The equipment is purchased with tax dollars.  Law enforcement is a socialistic enterprise.  It is not a free enterprise, privately owned.  There are private security companies that are not socialistic.  But they are limited in what they can do.  Law enforcement meets all the criteria of socialistic enterprise.

The same thing is true for our local public schools.  Schools are governed by local school boards, state legislatures and the federal government.  The buildings are owned by the community, not the principals or the coaches.  The employees are government employees paid from tax dollars.  Education is a right prescribed by the state constitution and is a socialistic enterprise.  The mission is to provide quality education for all kids, not to make a profit doing so. 

If the operating expense and the salaries are paid by tax dollars, if an elected governmental body defines what is to be produced by whom, and if the capital assets are owned and operated by the public then the operation is a socialistic operation, not a free enterprise or private sector or market driven operation.

We have always had a large number of socialistic operations in our country.  Our armed services, believe it or not, are a socialistic operation, as is our highway system (for the most part), our waste water systems, and our justice system of courts, judges, jails, etc.  Any service you can name that is funded by tax dollars and where the assets are publicly owned is a socialistic operation. Our military and law enforcement folks defend democracy via a socialistic organization.  That may be hard for them to swallow, but the economic term for their organization is socialism, and the political term for our country is representative democracy.  For some reason we seek to hide that reality and refer to what these government employees do as serving their country or community.  And that is true, but the service they provide is socialistically organized.  Thank you for your service is sincere for the military, law enforcement, teachers, firemen, public works employees, etc.

(As an aside, there is an entrepreneurial trend attacking our public services.  These private sector folks want to get paid with tax dollars too.  So, they have initiated charter schools that take tax dollars but are not publicly controlled, private prisons, security forces overseas, etc.  Each of these are efforts to avoid the government controls while getting rich on tax payer dollars.  No, I do not support any of these schemes, especially when we continue to hear about corruption and failure to perform by these entities.  Everyone who says government should run like a business is arguing that some people should get rich from tax dollars.)

So, what is the danger of socialism?  Clearly, the more operations in our country that are assumed by the government the fewer the private sector jobs and profits in those areas.  And vice versa, the more socialistic operations are converted to private sector operations the more private individuals will grow wealthy while the quality of the service declines.  How can I make such a broad statement?  Simple, he says rhetorically.  The motives are totally different.  If my motive is to make a profit then I will seek ways to cut costs. If my motive is to provide a needed service I will work long and hard hours regardless of the salary to accomplish my motive.  Public sector operations are phenomenal.  We call the private sector operations phenomenal if they make their owners rich. 

Plus citizen influence on socialistic operations is much higher than on private operations.  If I am unhappy about my local water service I can show up at City Council and complain.  It is at the public meeting of this elected body that decisions are made.  In the private sector we are not sure who is making the decision, or when or where.  We can often take our business somewhere else, but that means we change, the business doesn’t change.

(As another aside, human beings are not socialists.  Some humans may support socialistic operations more than private sector operations, but the person is not a socialist.  I doubt that one could find a person who would be willing to do away with all the privately owned and operated restaurants so that the government could run community based food service for all.  Ugh.  It is the private sector that provides choice, not the public sector.  When I call 9-1-1 I do not pick which enforcement agency shows up.)

Perhaps now we can have an adult conversation about health care.  Currently health care in the US is a private sector operation and all the evidence says that the quality of our health care is declining, large numbers of people are not receiving appropriate health care, and health care providers, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies are growing rich.  OK.  So, do you want health care to be a public service operation or would you prefer to leave it in the hands of the private sector despite the evidence that it is run for profit and not for service?

For me, the real danger of socialism is that we do not look at converting those operations in our private sector to socialistic operations for the benefit of all and the loss of millions for the few.  All the industrialized nations that have followed such a path are generating higher standards of living than we are and are healthier than we are.  But if your response to the term socialism is visceral and not logical you will never see it that way.

Fascism is a much larger danger for our nation, but that merits another post.