Today's going to be a busy day, so in order to keep you guys coming back to my page, I decided to transfer an old column that I'm proud of.  I know that this particular column flies in the face of the traditional definition of socialism as state ownership of labor but I felt that that definition didn't do the horrors of socialism proper justice.  I believe, contrary to most, that socialism is not a new idea but, in fact, an ancient one with themes common through many ancient and modern civilizations.  What I describe in this column (as I most conceitedly call it.  I guess "blog" isn't as dignified a term as I'd like) is what could be called a newer, more general definition of socialism, tying together the common traits and themes of many political ideas.  In fact, many may believe that what I now deem as "socialism" is what Ayn Rand would spitefully refer to as "collectivism".  I do agree with Ms. Rand, however, "collectivism", to me, is a culturally philosophical dogma, not a socio-economic system.  My definition of socialism grants the ideas and epistemology of collectivism the gift of a system of policy rather than just a politico-cultural movement within the "body politic".  It takes the metaphysical and invisible and grants it an objective movement whose devastation can be calculated and studied.  My definition of socialism is any form of government that places social issues over individual and economic freedom.  Which I find much more accurate.  By the way, there are a couple changes.  Hope you enjoy.  Godbless!

-WilliamPitt 3/7/09

If there ever was a catchphrase for the 2008 presidential election, it was “maverick”, followed closely by “socialism”. Truthfully, a lot of people heard it, repeated it, and called Obama a socialist (including myself), but would appear baffled when asked: "what kind of socialist is he?" To the surprise of many people, socialism isn’t a form of government, it (like capitalism) is a socio-economic system that takes many forms depending on the recent history, the culture, and the location. You have National Socialism (i.e. Naziism), Fascism, Communism, Feudalism, Constitutional Monarchy, and Democratic Socialism, all of which fall into the category of "socialism". Contrary to popular belief, socialism existed long before Karl Marx's wife left him.

So what is socialism? Socialism is a system that places social issues over economic ones and manipulates economics to suit whatever social issues take precedence in a given time or nation. This is why socialism differs from place to place, time period to time period. This is why Italian Fascism was completely different from Spanish Fascism, and they, different from German Naziism, and all three running on anti-Bolshevism, and Bolshevism violently opposing Fascism and Naziism which was, likewise, exclusive to Russia, which is completely different from Chinese Communism. One main idea tying all forms of socialism together is the idea of the importance of social issues (race, class, etc) and the nonsensical economics of public ownership.

In socialism, winners and losers are selected out of the "body politic" to quote Hobbes, and economics are manipulated to accommodate. The only systems of socialism to be successful (if success is to be judged by longevity) are Feudalism and Constitutional Monarchy. The reason these forms have been able to last is because it makes no bones about who the Elite are and why they are the Elite around whom the economics of the nation revolve. It’s because of this totalitarian brute-honesty that they are able to survive, the people below have no hope of getting to the Elite level so they either bow and scrape or simply go about their business.  Granted a Constitutional Monarchy is the more free of the two (England was, at one time, the freest nation in the world, but still not free enough for the Americans), but it still revolves around the same premise of all things belonging to the King or Queen on loan to the People.  Rather than the very American (and capitalist) notion of individuals owning what they earn and loaning it to others as they see fit.

All other forms of socialism tend to be very unstable, shifting leadership and in constant fear of imminent revolution and a new form of government. The reason for that is because all the other forms of socialism (Fascism, Naziism, Communism, Democratic Socialism, et al.) are forms of socialism that rebel against the monarch and giving the power to "the People" (another notion as abstract and impossible as "Royalty".  "The People" don't actually exist.  They're a group of individuals, not a single body of a single mind), which to those forms of socialism means the underdog. These forms of socialism promise instant gratification and power to "the People" and when "the People" never get that gratification, or when "the People" become the monarch, a new revolution begins and the cycle continues (See much of Latin America with their rampant regime changes).

Socialism, in all cases, is totalitarian, but it can be subdivided into two categories: authoritarian and popular. Before I describe authoritarian and popular socialism, allow me to define "totalitarian" since "totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" tend to merge in the popular mind. Totalitarianism is government that is all-encompassing; as Mussolini said "everything within the State, nothing outside the State". Totalitarianism doesn’t necessarily mean a dictatorship with the mantra of "what I say goes", it simply means that there is no issue that wanders outside the realm of politics. In a totalitarian government, everything is a political issue to be dealt with and solved by the State (money, labor, race, even sex). What divides totalitarianism into the two subcategories of authoritarianism and populism is the leadership.

An authoritarian government has one leader, a dictator or a king appointed by either "the People" or God/bloodline. This leader has absolute and indisputable rule over the body politic and can only be overthrown by death or uprising. This is different in a populist government where the leader calls himself a "president" (like Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe) and still holds elections that "may or may not" (if you watch the news) be rigged to favor the president. Social-populist governments tend to rely on pandering and mob-rule, bankrupting their country to remain in power, which is why these countries are so unstable and quite often back-wardly poor.

Philosophically, socialism is also self-destructive and utter gibberish. It was built first on the foundation of Platonist metaphysics, then later Kantian/Hegelian existentialism and pragmatism, which requires a separation from reality and principle. Socialist economics thrives on separating from economic reality for the social want and the whim of "the People". Socialism attempts to mix existentialism with economics which is like mixing oil and water. Economics can't work properly while denying or questioning reality as existentialism does, and existentialism implodes in its own weightlessness when reminded of the reality that economics need. This is apparent in the socialist view of property. Socialism insists that there is no private property when the reality states that there is private ownership. They ask the existential question: "how do you know that that is your property?" and then deny that the deed in your hand exists. It's also obsessed with dealing quickly the issue at hand without thought, approximation, or any kind of objective questioning as to the origins of the issue. (Note all socialist heroes were men of "action" like Mussolini, Hitler, Jackson, Polk, Roosevelt, Guevara, Castro, etc.) Pragmatism drives political expediency and quick (even if temporary) fixes demanded by the mob with the loudest voices and the biggest signs. It has no regard for principle or foundation and actually views the two as a detriment.

Karl Marx took the entire socialism argument into a new plain. Marxism is very different from the other forms of socialism in that pure Marxism is, in reality, anarchy. Marx was a medievalist who was embittered by his aristocratic wife leaving him and his disillusionment with economics as a rather brilliant economist. His books; Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto laid out his vision of government that sweeps in through fire and revolution, organizes society into communes, and then disappears forever, leaving society back in the dark ages of societal evolution. He envisioned a world without government, rules, commerce, possession, or trade. A world where these small self-sufficient communities organized labor and put all the fruits of the labor into a common pool from which all ate and received supplies in accordance to their need–basically Atheistic Calvinism. Marxism, though it inspired Russian Communism, was a very different vision from Vladimr Lenin or Joseph Stalin who believed government could continue to exist and regulate those communes forcibly, manipulating prices and other market forces to suit their whims. Both Marxism and Communism are an extreme departure from the idea of socialism, but they are the very farthest a society can go to the left; likewise, Anarcho-Capitalism is the farthest a society can go to the right (not Fascism, which floats in the middle).

Allow me to redefine socialism as an economic system that places social issues above economic reality or principle itself. It's the manipulation of economics in order to pander to social prejudices or preferences. America has had many forays into what could be considered socialism, but we are ingrained, as a nation, in a classically liberal, capitalistic foundation so when the Hydra of socialism has reared it’s ugly head in America’s history, be it through the Euro-centric, expansionist, light-feudalism of the southern states in the early national and antebellum periods (the aristocracy anyway, many of the poor in the South were almost proto-libertarian), the progressive movement of the early 1900s, the age of the ever-growing Nation-State in the mid-20th century, it has been rejected at one point or another in favor of capitalism light and individualism until we forget through distant nostalgia just how terribly the socialist experiments worked out.

We hear "right" and "left" spouted off constantly without definition, but to define Right versus Left in the simplest, most modern, and most American way possible, is simply as capitalism versus socialism. What are the differences between the two? Well, one champions classical liberalism, which is laissez-faire economics and individualism with no importance placed upon social issues provided they don’t harm another person’s individual rights; the other champions modern liberalism, which is actually Euro-centric conservatism meaning socially engineered economics and collectivism. What I tend to see in the usual "right vs. left" debates is not the argument between capitalism and socialism, but the argument of social conservatism and social liberalism, both of which are forms of socialism and neither of which pertain to capitalism whose only concern is free-markets and economic freedom for the individual.

Every election, I see things like obesity, environment, health care, welfare, and gay marriage come up and I'm flabbergasted because I wonder: "what place do these issues rightfully have in a classically liberal government?" If we are truly free, then why do we concern ourselves with social issues? If we put too much stock in social issues, we give to one group by the oppression of another group. That is not freedom. This is the reason socialism and social issues in general are detrimental to a free society. If we manipulate economics (which naturally wants to reward those who earn it) in order to perpetuate and prop up social policies, we oppress man's mind and man's strength. And if man truly is a creature of intellect and strength, then any form of government or economics is, by nature, destructive.

I've often wondered why actual liberals like Ron Paul or Barry Goldwater can't seem to win elections while "liberals" like John McCain, Barack Obama, and Lyndon Johnson can't help but win. It's because we are a society obsessed with social issues and pop culture. We demand our government exhibit compassion to those we (temporarily) view as down-trodden. But on whose dime? On whose back do we place the burden? That forgotten soul is the truly oppressed and the true victim of society–the individual. But our society, through the crafty rhetoric of our politicians, seems to think that that man doesn’t exist. As if compassion in itself yields results and funds from thin air. That’s why the Pauls and Goldwaters lose--because the Johnsons, Obamas, and McCains champion the social issues, while the Pauls and Goldwaters don't feel the need to dignify them.

Thus socialism wins elections; however, capitalism–liberty–is stuck only winning hearts and minds.

-WilliamPitt