Okay. I know how that sounds. When most people in the West hear the term “socialism”, what do we think of? Soviet Union. Mass killings. Over-the-top propaganda posters with Russian writing. A large nationalist army marching into Afghanistan (sounds familiar…) just because their unpopular government said so (no comment required on that part). Maybe even a bunch of blandly-dressed Koreans bowing to their leader or a bunch of 1960’s hippies scarfing down a plateful of blotters. Are any of these things really accurate? The simple answer is no.
Every single mental imagery listed pertains to Communism, in a way. Communism is utopian in theory. There’s probably little need to discuss the inherent failures of a Communist system that lead to mass killings, cults-of-personality, and communal tripping (that last one’s debatable). But Communism is not socialism. Really. It’s not. Socialism is an element of Communism. However, the definition of socialism is simply the means of production being owned by the workers, and an emphasis on social justice. It does not specify how the workers own the means of production, nor does it specify what is used to achieve this ownership; it does not specify by what means social justice is achieved or even what “social justice” exactly means. Simply put, socialism is a theory of economics that can take on just about any political system. Communism has never been successful, but socialism has never been attempted. I’ll let all that sink in.
Another common misconception regarding socialism is that Hitler was a socialist. The Nazi party, yes, was called Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which means “National Socialist German Worker’s Party”. But just like how the Soviet Union wasn’t truly Communist (something I think we can all agree upon), the Nazis weren’t actually socialists. Far from it, in fact.
Remember like a minute ago when you read my statement that socialism can take on just about any political system? There are a few political systems that do not mix with socialism, notably its polar opposite, fascism. To the Germans, National Socialism meant true socialism, but only within ethnic Germans. This is what makes it facism and not socialism. Fascism generally advocates for some socialist concepts, such as the empowerment of the workers and social equality, but only for a specific group (almost always a racial or ethnic group). It also advocates for the maltreatment, enslavement, or even eradication of anyone who is not a part of the group in question. Another example about the widely-infamous Nazis would be Völkisch equality, which was the concept that ethnic Germans should be the only people to have equality before the law and should essentially be the first to receive bread in times of short supply. As was already mentioned, socialism advocates for total equality. Therefore, “National Socialism” is a misnomer, an oxymoron, and is actually fascism (even ideologically).
It seems as though the Nazi party used the term “socialism” to popularize their movement to the then-suffering Germans (while ensuring it remained distinct from Communism, as even then the Germans generally weren’t fond of the Soviets. This is just and educated guess, and there is no evidence to support that the Nazis were ever aware of the inaccuracy of their terminology. It seems likely though, as the higher-ups in the Nazi party tended to be very intelligent and highly educated.
While it is true that nowadays (and always if speaking of its strictest definition), traditionally, socialism also advocated for little-to-no government. Take for example one of the primary socialist anthems, The Internationale, written in 1871 in the French language (as L’Internationale). The direct translation of the original carries the following string within its third stanza.
“The State oppresses and the law cheats.
Tax bleeds the unfortunate.
No duty is imposed on the rich,
The rights of the poor is an empty phrase.
Enough languishing in custody!”
As well as this one in the fifth stanza.
“The kings made us drunk with fumes,
Peace among us, war to the tyrants!
Let the armies go on strike,
Stocks in the air, and break ranks.
If they insist, these cannibals
On making heroes of us,
They will know soon that our bullets
Are for our own generals.”
The modern versions differs slightly between language and translator, but the message remains the same. Government is bad, especially in large or increasing amounts.
Relevantly, it seems as though some Americans will connect any political ideology that they don’t like to gun control. The fact of the matter may be different. Nowhere, never, not once, was there ever a requirement that a socialist society have strict gun control or must rid of its personal weapons. Some socialists may believe in gun control, but much like capitalism, it isn’t, by any means, a necessity to have gun control (or big government, as was obviously already mentioned here).
Socialism also doesn’t mean everything gets redistributed. Again, that is primarily a Communist concept, after all Marx was the one who developed the idea of “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”
Although there is, of course, no such thing as a perfec system, it seems to me as though socialism (particularly Libertarian socialism, if you don’t think thats possible please refer to the entire contents of this article) is the best option. In my opinion, the people who make things should not only own those things, but should also own the things used to make those things. Also, I’m a large supporter of equality, minimal government, and the non-aggression principle.
No, I’m not an atheist, either. The reason socialism is associated with atheism is partially from Communist influence; it is also partially from the fact that at the time socialist ideas were coming about, people were beginning to deviate heavily from the church (mostly the Catholic Church), and intellectual minds often associated religion with government. Not all socialists are necessarily atheists, and isn’t it part of social justice to accept all religions? All sides have hypocrites, why does that have to ruin it for those who are not?
Theoriesverse 