Socialism, a term that has become increasingly associated by the older generations to the horrors of communism, the Cold War, the Soviet Union and inevitably the mass killings and crimes against humanity associated with such ideals. From a historical standpoint, the actions of the Soviet Union, North Korea, and even China with Mao Zedong has left nothing but a bitter taste in many people concerning the beliefs of socialism and communism. Consequently, the emphasis of these countries on both socialism and communism has undoubtedly left the average person confused about the actual distinction between socialism and communism. In fact, it was even noted during the political debates that Donald Trump, the current president, confused the two terms by calling Senator Bernie Sanders a “socialist slash communist” in a tribute to the negative connotations these words possess despite the fact that Senator Bernie Sanders labels himself as strictly a democratic socialist.
With all this uncertainty, many may wonder what exactly is socialism? How does that differ from communism and Is it truly as bad as people make it out to be?
Socialism is defined, according to Merriam Webster Dictionary, as any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Likewise, communism is analogously defined by Merriam Webster as a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Based on initial observations from definitions alone, it is uncanny how similar these concepts are to each other. Both socialism and communism were built on the premise of a centralized system controlled by either the government or a collective group. Their differences, however, lie in the role of individuals in their respective systems. While socialism has individuals compensated proportionally to their contributions to society, communism has individuals universally compensated for their needs. Consequently, many communistic models, despite arguing equality, have resulted in low productions and mass poverty due to lack of motivation for workers. Additionally, while communism is defined as a political theory, socialism is at its core an economic theory. This difference lies in the fact that one mainly concerns the systematic transfer of wealth whereas the other focuses on the organization of individuals (and thus more prone to corruption and bias).
Historically, the origins of socialism and communism also differ greatly. According to Dr. Lawrence Quill, professor and chairman of political sciences at San Jose University, socialism came as a primary response to capitalism and the fear of unequal wealth distributions that may have resulted from pure individual competition. Communism meanwhile was seen as a more extreme end product of socialism; a model where distinctions between classes become completely abolished. Consequently, many realistic attempts at communism (as with the Soviet Union) often resulted in the complete elimination of private property and freedom of speech; ideas that have become foundational for many governments.
As with all theories, the values behind socialism, communism, and even capitalism have their merits and flaws. With the complexity of modern day society, it’s not uncommon for many countries to incorporate multiple economic systems now under the pretense of a “mixed economy”. According to Investopedia, even countries such as the United States exhibit aspects of a mixed economy with characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. The cooperation of both socialism and capitalism allows for the protection of private property and freedom in using economic capital while at the same time providing a means for governmental interference and regulations when the situation calls for it. Essentially, by combining socialism and capitalism, mixed economies are able to give individuals the incentive and motivation to succeed while simultaneously ensuring a sense of equality for those in abject poverty.
So, is socialism really that bad? The answer, as with so many issues in life, is ultimately subjective. The perceptions of socialism, communism, capitalism and even the mixed economy systems are in the end just broad umbrella terms where countless possibilities exist. To what extent should a government interfere without violating our natural rights? In what way should equality (or lack thereof) play a role in this issue? Even if there are definite answers to these questions, who has the power to decide whether or not any system of government is the “correct one”?
Sources:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/031815/united-states-considered-market-economy-or-mixed-economy.asp
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-calls-bernie-sanders-maniac-socialist-slash-communist/story?id=34484030
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/do-you-know-the-difference-between-a-communist-and-a-socialist-a6708086.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/henryk-a-kowalczyk/capitalism-socialism-and-_b_8523486.html
https://www.thebalance.com/socialism-types-pros-cons-examples-3305592
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
Hi Kebo,
I think you do a great job of detailing the difference between socialism and communism in your piece, as well as taking a neutral stance in the debate surrounding which type of government is “best.” From what I understand, both socialism and communism rely on a degree of government involvement, which, while desirable for some, may not necessarily be desirable for all. Granted, it is virtually impossible to get an entire country to agree on one idea, but when evaluating the viability of socialism as an economic system, it is important to investigate and determine if this approach mirrors some of the core American values and beliefs.
Equality and opportunity, both American values, are reflected in socialist concepts that aim to provide a sense of security and comfort to those from all economic backgrounds. As discussed in your piece, socialism emerged in an effort to combat financial inequality, which, at first glance, seems reasonable. However, when you think about it, one of most valued aspects of American culture is independence. In a socialist system, people rely on the government to ensure that their needs are met. As explained by Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, “…socialism is often called paternalism — because it causes people to look upon the government as their parent, one who is taking care of his children by ensuring that they have an education, health care, retirement pay, and so forth.” In a country that already allows for some government reliance through Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, and so forth, there are concerns that any additional aid would not only reshape the structure of the American government and economic system, but also increase dependence on the government to satisfy needs. Socialist ideas like those of Medicare have been floating around for years, however, people like Franklin Roosevelt “understood that if [they] could just get Americans dependent on socialism, [Americans] would never be able to wean themselves off it” (Hornberger).
Having some resources that mirror socialist ideas, like Medicare, Medicaid, and temporary unemployment compensation for those actively seeking work can really helpful, but any more government involvement, particularly in the distribution of funds and resources, could do more harm than good in the long run.
Source:
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/arguments-socialism-including-medicare/
Hi Kebo,
Your article made for a very interesting read and posed some very thought-provoking questions at the end. The difference between socialism and communism is a very important distinction to make, because so many people jump to conclusions when the term “socialist” is uttered. It is also important to note that there are many “socialist” programs in the United States, some of which we couldn’t do without. For example, public education, police and fire departments, and public libraries and museums are all implemented into our life relatively seamlessly. In recent polls, Millennials have shown greater acceptance and even support for socialism, more so than for capitalism. Certainly, it would be interesting to see in the future, if the political culture in America does shift to a socialist atmosphere. However, considering some of the strong feelings of nationalism felt by many Americans today, many might not see the necessity to change up the current political system.
That being said, I believe there are many more efforts that could be done by our current government to invest in social programs, specifically those impacting our education system. Reading Partners, for example, is a program at more than 160 low-income schools that pairs volunteering tutors with children to work on their reading skills. Programs like this have been enormously beneficial to young children, and more funding for programs like these across more low-income schools is what I believe to be a worthy investment. Other programs outside the realm of educating children, are also important to invest in. Wyman’s Teen Outreach Program, implemented in rural Florida schools has shown success in teaching healthy behaviors to around 6,000 ninth-graders a year. As a result, these schools have seen a significant decrease in teen pregnancies and high school dropouts. Programs like these have the opportunity to really change the lives of so many Americans. While money shouldn’t just be thrown at anything, Congress should increase its funding to programs like with proven success rates like these.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/opinion/social-programs-that-work.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-give-socialism-a-try/2018/03/06/c603a1b6-2164-11e8-86f6-54bfff693d2b_story.html?utm_term=.67dd7d18a324
Hi Kebo,
I thought it was an interesting article! You did a good job clearly outlining the distinctions between socialism and capitalism, a crucial distinction do to the stigmas surrounding communistic practices. This was also particularly of interest to me as I support a strong social safety net and government programs that could be considered socialist. This has generate considerable confusion for myself and peers considering its difficult to find a more capitalism based major than Finance…
Anyways, I think it is interesting to consider how countries on the socialism/capitalism spectrum rank in happiness. Economist Richard Easterlin from the University of South Carolina considered changes in average happiness within European countries, as the Iron Curtain fell in the 1990s. While this paper did not directly compare happiness of people while countries were socialist versus happiness when the countries transitioned to capitalism, it considered how this transition impacted general barometers of happiness. Generally, Easterlin found that money increases happiness up to the point where you are lifted out of poverty and then having little to no effect on happiness after. Additionally, he found access to healthcare, education and job security highly correlated with happiness. All of these values and raising people out of poverty are more closely related to socialism. This led Easterlin to the conclusion that maybe focusing on how wealth and opportunity is distributed could be more important to happiness than a general statistic, such as gross GDP. This challenged one of my beliefs that globalization benefits countries because of its positive effects on efficiency and GDP output, which I had always considered a main goal.
The United Nations found that Denmark, Sweden and Norway were the “happiest” countries in the world. While I contest that there is any way to truly measure an entire countries happiness, I think it shows the relationship between the socialistic policies in these countries and the perceived happiness of the citizens.
https://www.livescience.com/9647-capitalism-socialism-happiness-care.html
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/is-scandinavian-socialism-really-a-cause-of-happiness/
Thanks for this interesting article, Kebo!
I think you bring up a good point in your concluding paragraph when you ask who has the power to decide which system of government is the “correct” one. I don’t think a “correct” or “perfect” system exists, but I do believe certain systems work better for certain countries.
Take Sweden, a system that is a mix of capitalism and socialism, for example. Sweden has the highest standard of living in the world and is thought to have “the most progressive education system” as well (http://www.paoracle.com/SocialismWORKS!/?sw=Sweden). However, Sweden has a 55% income tax and its population is about 22 times smaller than the U.S (10 million compared to 314 million) (http://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/united-states/sweden). If Sweden was a state in the US, it would have the lowest GDP per square mile. Though a socialist democracy works for Sweden due to its size and values, this system would probably completely fail in a larger country like the US.
Another interesting example of a mixed system would be China; a Communist country with a “socialist market economy” (http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch37-econ6.htm). Many democratic countries would likely attribute China’s economic success to it’s somewhat capitalist market attributes, but China’s Communist Party believes it is “exercising effective control over their nation’s economic engine” through socialism.
In my opinion, I think many economic systems can work depending on geographic location, the nation’s values and the nation’s nation’s natural resources. Though I personally see capitalism as being the most democratic, free and effective system, the truth is even America is not entirely capitalist or free… and choosing to rely solely on capitalism to run our country would be a disaster. While there may not be a “perfect system”, we can still strive to do our best.