...and the bartender says “Woah. There’s actually three people!”
An ideology is comprised entirely of what version of the world is fair to you. What system of rules and which worldview ultimately leads to prosperity? Should people, in general, be left to earn things or should they be made to share things? How much earning? How much sharing? Does a Conservative want you to earn your lot in life, or do they want to share it? Does a Liberal want you to earn your worth, or to share it? Who or what entity should enforce these rules?
This is politics in a nutshell, from the individual level all the way to the global level.
For the official record, a Socialist and a Liberal are not the same things. I don’t say this to draw a line in the sand. However, I say it as frustrations grow between a coalition of all things left-leaning. I believe that we cannot make any progress until we know where we stand ourselves and use concrete terminology to identify ourselves to each other. It also helps us to understand what we want out of politics, and what needs to be done in order to get there.
Semantics has left us awash in a sea where suddenly none of these words has any meaning. Socialism can mean anything today, but is most frequently used when referring to a good or service that is collectively owned. Some people will neglect even that aspect, suggesting things like banks, hospitals (not in the USA) and all infrastructure is Socialist in origin. If you can make a clever enough argument, you can convince people that Facebook, or even social media or the internet, in general, are Socialist in nature. This is the danger of conflating “socialism” with any and every sort of public service or resource one can imagine.
Conservatives were indeed the first to do this, calling every program offered by any Liberal over the last century “Socialism.” Right-wing politicians were calling FDR a Socialist long before anyone in the modern era did.
The internet is no more Socialist than any capitalist telephony provider or commercial cell phone network. DARPA invented the technology, set the standard for the code architecture and network topology, and laid much of the early backbone. But that doesn’t make it a Socialist economic practice. Most end-user service providers are all privately installed coaxial lines, or commercially owned telephone lines and cabling. While much of this was indeed subsidized, the commercial returns on productivity have paid for themselves several times over in our chosen economic system.
This same phenomenon of conflation has torn the meanings of Liberalism and Progressivism to shreds as well. One person cannot be a Progressive, a Liberal, and a Socialist all at the same time. Yet far too many people will use these terms interchangeably, usually in an attempt to avoid some kind of intellectual assault on their beliefs. The result is that several people will proclaim themselves something popular or familiar in order to come off as a more acceptable or fashionable without knowing their own beliefs.
I argue that the incorrect use of these terms is one of many reasons the left is in disarray as a cohesive unit, no matter how benign (the last true showing of unity being in the 2008 General Election). Even long before that, a person wanting to avoid the negative connotation of being a Socialist suddenly calls themselves either a Progressive, or a Liberal, or both, but most certainly never a Socialist. Either definition stands on its own, and will likely define a range of things that you will be in agreement with. The key part is just how much do you agree with these descriptions?
A Progressive (classical definition) roughly believes that education, market regulations, and workers rights correct an untamed, free-market society. A Liberal (classical definition) roughly believes that equal treatment, access, justice and civil rights combined with strong social safety nets and regulated, but free and open market creates a civilized society. A Socialist (classical definition) roughly believes that labor resources must be collectively owned, and that private ownership and profit motive are the breeding grounds for the social and class structures Socialists seek to eliminate.
The things that these ideologies have in common is that they all seek to combat economic barbarism in successive degrees. The strategy and desire to combat this barbarism grows stronger as you move further left. And don’t take my paraphrased definitions as official. Look up several definitions and form your own opinion of these things if you haven’t already done so. Many people also have different layouts and interpretations of the above chart, but for the most part, you will find a similar arrangement of ideologies, even if you use a Nolan or Pournelle chart.
Even when we look the definitions up, we find distinct meanings that we increasingly refuse to accept as complete or accurate. Whatever we like to call ourselves is fine for our own personal ends. However, the yardstick we use to measure ourselves is the yardstick we use to measure others, and there is a rapidly declining consensus on how long a yard actually is.
For one example, the Wikipedia definition (notwithstanding the academic merit of Wikipedia, or lack thereof) of Socialism specifically mentions “democratic control” as a central component of true socialism. I argue that state-controlled socialism can indeed exist without any sort of rolling democratic process. A democracy can be used to establish state socialism, and once that happens, future elections could well be suspended. If not, what happens when a majority of the voting population loses faith in socialism and votes for capitalism to become the economic framework? Can the market handle regular shifts between free enterprise and a planned economy?
I can safely assume that anyone with a DKos account believes in collective well-being in some fashion. Some of us believe that individual rights and benefits end up being collective rights and benefits — so long as these principles are applied universally.
One axis we can use to identify the direction a society can take is the “Collective/Individual” axis. Another is “Sharing/Earning.”
A Socialist wants you to share it. A Capitalist wants you to earn it.
I have been using this concept lately to a fair degree of success. It has proven to me to be a much better way to explain the traditional “Left/Right” axis we use to measure a person’s political preference. This much better illuminates the basic difference between a “Conservative” and a “Liberal,” both terms being in quotes because they’ve grown far from their original, classical definitions. However, you can certainly use the more popular terms and the basic premise still makes sense. It is worth noting that a Liberal is more of a centrist from 30,000 feet, and to the right of a Socialist. A conservative is not fully to the right, but certainly to the right of the modern Liberal.
But why do we need concrete definitions?
Mainly for new voters. If we confuse new voters about what they are, and they later realize that they may be something different, then what incentive will they have in engaging a vastly more complicated political system?
We also need concrete definitions to better understand each other.
When I say I’m a Liberal, it doesn’t mean I want to nationalize the labor force, engage in a public takeover of the free market, or give a steady paycheck to an able bodied person who is in good health, yet is unwilling to work. In fact, few self-proclaimed Socialists believe in this either. If you truly understand what socialism is about, then you understand that it means the maximization of provisions for all in society, no matter how much or how little they contribute.
When I say I’m a Liberal, it doesn’t mean I’m a capitalist-in-disguise “Neoliberal” who puts profits ahead of people. Neoliberalism is synonymous with Reaganomics and Thatcherism, and even Neoconservatism. But people unaware of its true meaning will gladly hurl the term as an epithet at anyone whom they feel doesn’t “tow their line,” generally unaware of just how left they are themselves.
A person saying that they’re Socialist doesn’t mean that they are ready to engage in a violent revolution where all political opponents are sent to prison camps. Or maybe you are, I can’t say for sure. It generally doesn’t mean that they admire Lenin or Chairman Mao for their mistakes that led to the death of tens of millions in a span of time of time that makes even capitalists blush. If you have to twist my arm, much of my argument is born out of a misunderstanding of Socialism in the first place. It has much to do with actual socialism that deals with the ownership of the means of production.
When it comes to progressivism, most don’t understand that the Republican Teddy Roosevelt started the concept of “Progressivism” and that conservatives hell bent on doing away with the term “Liberal” began to systematically pigeonhole Liberals under the umbrella of “Progressive.” From a classical standpoint, a Liberal is further left than a Progressive, but both are suspicious of market abuses and social inequality, and will fight these injustices.
But we have to first identify where we disagree, and then work from there. In the United States, a political coalition cannot survive unless we join together in our various positions and come to a consensus on how society should function. We generally don’t unless the political right has perverted the social climate so badly that there simply is no way to make progress unless we move together. This is an appeal for all of us to first realize what we are, and then to have us work together for collective gain. We may not get the entire wish list on the first go. But if we understand how hard it is to get similar ideologies to join our cause, we will make much better assessments on what it takes to get where we are trying to go. And that will be the benefit that we all seek to achieve.
A Socialist, a Liberal, and a Progressive walk into a bar… and came out the best of friends after getting to know each other even better.
That is the point of this diary, and I sincerely hope we are able to rebuild and strengthen the coalitions that have taken the entire nation to the left end of the spectrum once again. This diary is not a line in the sand, but food for thought.