There's Not an -ism that Doesn't Deserve a Good Whipping

It's funny how many auxiliary people you get to meet on Facebook when you add a "friend."  I don't post myself unless I'm hit by nostalgia about some anniversary or when I've actually done a blog or got a book out--which means seldom.

My decision to be a Facebook hermit it based largely on the fact I don't want to be bothered by rabid posts promoting someone's passionate opinions about political events, particularly when I don't agree with them.

But, add a friend, and all of a sudden you get to see the passions of their friends. It's like driving a thousand miles across country with Trump or McConnell or some other equally obnoxious politician in the back seat.

The latest example to come out of the woodwork is a friend of a friend, whom I don't know, holding forth on the evils of socialism without ever defining it. I assume I was supposed to take her word that it was just bad.

Breaking with my usual practice, I actually responded by asking her to define socialism in other terms than she just didn't like it.  The result was deafening silence. I guess the word is useful only as a label rather than a concept that has any real meaning.

This started me thinking about -isms in general.

We are surrounded by them: Catholicism, Protestantism, Fascism, Communism, Capitalism, Feudalism, Statism, Militarism, and Oligarchism, and on an on. An -ism is a cultural and/or economic structure that tends to become, in the words of the Catholic theologian, Paul Tillich, an "ultimate concern." In other words, the structure is capable of becoming a religion, if it isn't already. It shapes how people think, how they behave, how they live, what they value, and ultimately what they are willing to die for.

The fact is, though, that there isn't any one of them that is not dangerous. Every one of them needs to be modified, regulated, and shaped into something useful. Left to their own devices, every one of them becomes abusive, repressive, and corrupt.

I have never understood the insane desire to impose a "perfect" -ism. The role of any government is to modulate to make the "perfect union." Pure religion leads to bigotry and inquisitions. Pure Capitalism leads to dog eat dog where the rich devour the poor. Pure communism leads to political and economic control and squelches creativity. Pure oligarchism leads to the control of everything by a small, wealthy elite.

And what about socialism? Socialism basically argues that certain parts of community life, those essential services, like medical coverage, provision of utilities, education, care of the land, the military and national guard, and care of the young and the elderly, are in the national interest and are best operated as non-profit and community owned, paid for by taxes.

No one is calling for the government to take over everything and restrict personal freedom--that's communism.

Yes, socialism has a down side. It can promote a lack of ambition and self-preservation. That's why it too needs to be regulated. But I don't see anything wrong, myself, with the government taking the broadest possible view of what makes for a level playing field in society and what is needed for the future survival of the nation and a decent standard of living. But, for that, we actually need wise, far-seeing politicians.

Given our political climate and the endemic greed, hell will freeze before we are ready for those conversations.

But just for starters, could we please pay some attention to the words they use.