The details aren't important, but a right-wing caller to a radio talk show prompted this post.
This wing-nut railed against socialism because it "depresses the economy, reduces productivity, discourages innovation, and eliminates incentives for people to work hard."
Sorry, dear wing-nut. That's not socialism, that's communism you're talking about. Not the same thing! I think it's time to rescue the word "socialism" from its ignominious confusion with communism.
We can't talk about ideas unless everyone agrees on the meaning of words. That's why I think it's important (though probably quixoticly difficult) to separate "socialism" (which I favor, up to a point) from "communism" (which I don't).
Communism is the idea that the "means of production" e.g. natural resources like gold mines, oil fields, drinking water and farmland belong to everyone and should be managed for everyone's benefit, not for the profit of the "owners". A noble idea on paper, but in practice, it leads to totalitarianism and loss of basic human liberties. And yes, it leads to a weak economy, low productivity and a lack of innovation and individual incentive.
Unlike communism, socialism is not an economic system. It is simply this: the idea that it's the government's job to provide services.
Whenever government provides a service which it would be difficult or impossible for individuals to provide for themselves, that's socialism at work. Free public schools are socialist. Our armed forces are socialist. The interstate highway system is socialist. In the old days, parents were responsible for educating their children (many got none), militias were local affairs (which could never fight a modern war), and the only long-distance roads were turnpikes built by private companies (to make a profit). Does anyone seriously propose that we should each be responsible for paving our own streets and disposing of our own household trash and sewage? How many people who complain of high taxes really would be willing to do without schools, libraries, police and fire departments, parks, streetlights and snowplows?
Not even right-wing dimwits confuse these things with communism. How many people want to abolish them? (OK, a few Libertarians.) On the other hand, how many people favor socialist programs like Social Security, universal health care, and improved public education? If you are in favor of some or all of these, does that make you a communist? No, but it does make you a socialist!
Our current administration, as you can tell by glancing at their proposed budget, does not favor these things. Instead, they favor a partnership between government and business, which, as the dictionary will tell you, is the definition of fascism. Serious people once favored fascism as an efficient method of managing society and the economy, but this idea, like communism, turned out to look better on paper than in practice.
It may be too late to rescue the world "socialist" from its (deliberate?) confusion with communism. Maybe it would be easier to invent a new word for people who who believe it's part of government's job to do things for people. Maybe this is what "progressive" means? Naw, too vague, covers too much ground.
I hate to lose a perfectly good word to ignorance and sloppy thinking. To quote Humpty Dumpty, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I wish it to mean, neither more nor less. It's merely a question of who is to be master: you or the word!"
I've learned the hard way that attempting to correct people who misuse words is a sure way to make yourself unpopular, but I feel this issue is important enough to make an effort. What is the legitimate purpose of government? Do government services make people soft, lazy and dependent? Or is part of the whole raison d'etre for government, as the Constitution says, to "promote the general Welfare"?