Socialism: Conservative’s ‘Colloquial’ Definition

This is a continuation of my thoughts in a previous post, Against Capitalism: Democracy & Socialism. That post was partly written in response to my conservative dad’s view of socialism. I wanted to clarify what actual socialists supported vs what conservatives think they support. After making my correction, my dad didn’t disagree with it. But he did argue that his use of socialism was colloquial and so still somehow true or relevant for basic discussion.

Here is what my dad considers to be the colloquial definition of socialism: big government especially in terms of spending other people’s money, centralized power especially when abused, etc. I pointed out, however, that both parties have promoted policies that would fit under his definition of socialism despite the two parties being dominated by some combination of neoconservatives and neoliberals, political views that are very different from anything socialists advocate. In fact, socialists in the US are some of the most vocal critics of our present two-party system and those who control it.

From my perspective, this is sadly ironic to hear a conservative like my dad make this argument. By his own logic, the McCarthyist anti-communists were socialists which simply makes no sense whatsoever. Joseph McCarthy (along with others such as J. Edgar Hoover) was defending big government and centralized power against the socialists/communists who were challenging the oppression and injustice.

I once brought up the issue of the Bonus Army. I explained to my dad how this was an abuse of power. Despite the protest camp having signs up forbidding communists, despite the protesters being completely pacifist, the US government sent in troops to violently break up the protesters and killed some of them in the process. The US government’s rationalization, as I recall, was that they were harboring communists or that it might turn into a communist revolt or something like that. Once again, going by my dad’s logic, we are forced to conclude that the US government had been acting like socialists in attacking others as socialists.

So, you would think my dad would be against this abuse of power, although you would be wrong. My dad thought the threat of communists was real and so the abuse of power necessary. This means that it is acceptable to act like a ‘socialist’ when fighting perceived socialists (or one’s projections of fears about ‘socialism’); but when socialists don’t act according to the colloquial defintion of socialism it is acceptable to criticise theoretical ‘socialism’ and to pretend it has anything to do with socialism in the real world.

What my dad misses is that his colloquial definition of ‘socialism’ is only colloquial among anti-communists. How is it fair to use an anti-communist rhetorical frame as a way of discussing socialism in a fair and rational way? It isn’t.

Here is the source of much of this conflict of worldviews. My dad is of an older generation. He is on the young end of the Silent generation. He grew up with the anti-communist propaganda that began earlier in the century and manifested as full-blown paranoia during the Cold War. So, his ‘colloquial’ definition is grounded in propaganda. My dad was raised on that propaganda and so to him it is his reality… or, as I would call it, his reality tunnel since he is almost incapable of seeing outside of it. Even when I point out that real world socialists don’t fit his theoretical ‘colloquial’ definition, his anti-communist rhetorical frame, he still insists on his beliefs about socialism over the reality of socialism. He just can’t wrap his brain around the reality of socialism.

The generational issue seems key to me. The world was very different earlier last century. I don’t dismiss the dangers the Cold War posed. My point is that it has little to do with today. When I told my dad of a right-winger who became a left-winger, a socialist even, his entire sense of reality was blown because that just didn’t seem possible. My dad didn’t understand that socialism and libertarianism originated from the same opposition to abusive power, didn’t understand that many people are simultaneously socialist and libertarian.

When my dad was growing up, the frame of politics was Godless communism vs God-fearing capitalism and the conservatives of the time tried to conflate this with partisan politics, thus making the entire left into communist conspirators. Conservatives were largely successful in their reframing politics and so the entire political spectrum including both parties shifted to the right and have been shifting to the right ever since, even as the majority of Americans have been shifting left.

My dad doesn’t comprehend how much the world has changed. Most GenXers don’t see the world according to such frames. Rather, the frame of GenXers tends to be alternative vs mainstream, centralized power vs decentralized power, etc. Partisan politics and party loyalty mean a lot less to GenXers and maybe a lot less to Millennials as well at this point. Both parties are for big government that spends other people’s money and for abuse of centralized power. If a person wants to be against big government and centralized power, then they are morally compelled to be against both parties.

My dad, however, can’t quite bring himself to such a morally principled position. It goes against every fibre of his body. He is a partisan. It is the worldview he was raised in and so it is how he makes sense of the world. He recently spoke of the common partisan view that it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils. As such, my dad just wants to vote for the candidate who has the greatest potential of defeating Obama. What my dad and other partisans are oblivious to is both sides are playing this game. When both sides are voting for the lesser of two evils, evil always wins. I suggested to my dad that people vote their conscience instead, but he was utterly baffled by this concept and couldn’t imagine how that could work. In his mind, Americans have always voted for the lesser of two evils… and so how could it be otherwise?

My comments here also fit into another post of mine, Conservative’s Two Faces of Fear. The basic thought I had in that post is expressed in this comment about conservatives:

“They criticize both centralized government and grassroots activism. Both criticisms are based in their fear of democracy. They fear a government that would fairly and equally represent all people, including the poor, unemployed and homeless, including immigrants and minorities. But they also fear the people governing themselves through direct democracy for they fear mobocracy (and the same reason they fear grassroots organizations such as workers forming unions). These aren’t two fears but rather a single fear manifesting in two ways.”

I just now realized that this is the same dynamic playing out in the anti-communist frame. To conservatives such as my dad, their fears of socialism are tied up with their fears of democracy. In this, at least they are being consistent since social democracy and democratic socialism are two sides of the same coin. What this kind of conservative fears isn’t big government, but rather big government that represents all equally and fairly (democracy) and that serves all equally and fairly (socialism). What this kind of conservative fears isn’t grassroots activism, but rather grassroots activism that gives voice to all equally and fairly (democracy) and that demands economic and social justice for all equally and fairly (socialism).

Even when confronted with the reality of democratic socialism, my dad feels compelled to hold onto the anti-communist frame that distorts this reality. Why? Because his entire worldview would fall apart without it. The reality of democratic socialism (especially in context of it being inseparable from the reality of social democracy) undermines all of his beliefs and values. To fully confront this reality would portend an existential crisis. Outer revolution (or even the potential of it) must be suppressed because the outer turmoil mirrors an inner turmoil every ideologue struggles with. If the simplistic political frame fails to give adequate meaning and to maintain a semblance of order, one’s personal reality will crumble.

The question that arises is this: Can a conservative still be a conservative without attacking caricatures of communism based on their own projected fears? How could the conservative movement define itself without such scapegoats? If conservatives accepted the fact that some of the most socialist countries in Europe are also the most successful, how could they continue with their righteousness about laissez-faire capitalism and why would they want to?

* * * *

Additional thought:

I’ve identified as a liberal for all of my adult life. Recently, I’ve decided to identify as a socialist. I figured I might as well embrace the label of ‘socialist’ since any liberalism worthy of the name will automatically get labeled as ‘socialism’ by those on the right and probably even by many mainstream Democrats.

Still, whatever label I go by, my general attitude will always be liberal. To me, being a left-liberal is the same thing as being a liberal left-winger. When looking at the non-liberal left-wing, it is often hard to tell it apart from much of the right-wing. The ideal of liberalism, not necessarily the label, is what is important to me.

The core ideal (or one might say archetype) of liberalism is generosity of spirit and mind. In practical politics, this means: reaching out with compromise instead of unbending willfulness, seeking sympathetic understanding instead of righteous judgment, aspiring to common good instead of mere self-interest, advocating peace instead of conflict, etc. Or to put in Christian terms, this is the difference between Jesus’ message of humility, love and forgiveness and Yahweh’s message of divine authoritarianism, awe-inpsiring fear and righteous judgment.

The anti-communist frame is the complete opposite of the essence of liberalism. It isn’t just opposite in terms of ideology but also in terms of methodology. To exaggerate like this is to portray one’s opponent as a caricature and thus turn him into a scapegoat. The liberal would rather turn one’s opponent into a friend or at least into a partner. The liberal wants to work together. The liberal’s tendency toward socialism is based in their faith in human nature, both on the individual and the collective level. Liberals want to believe people are not only good but capable and desirous of doing good. Conservatives, generally speaking, don’t have such faith and tend to criticize those who do.

This is why conservatives tend to ignore the North European countries with their social democracies leaning toward socialism. Such examples prove that that the ideals of liberalism and socialism are possible.

The opposite dynamic, however, doesn’t exist or isn’t as commonly found. A liberal or socialist may criticize capitalism as being ultimately good, but they won’t deny and dismiss certain successes of capitalist countries. For the those on the right, if socialism is economically sucessful, their entire argument falls apart. For those on the left, their argument isn’t based on mere success in terms of some people accruing great profits and so such capitalist success doesn’t undermine the practical and moral factors of their argument. The complaint socialists have is that capitalism often is very successful in oppressing and eliminating, often brutally, those who oppose the capitalist system and/or the plutocratic elite. Those on the left acknowledge that might doesn’t make right, that material success doesn’t equate to moral justification.

In order to make the argument for my position, I don’t need to use an anti-capitalist frame to caricature and scapegoat all laissez-faire capitalists. To me, it is counterproductive to conflate all capitalism with all fascism or, on the other hand, to conflate all capitalism with all free markets. There is definite connections and crossover. Capitalism tends toward monopoly which in turn makes fascism (or corporatism, i.e., soft fascism and inverted totalitarianism) possible and more probable. But socialists don’t need to dismiss free markets in the way those on the right feel compelled to dismiss the freedom of democratic socialism. In fact, socialists have a history of redefining free markets as an antidote to capitalism.

So, as a liberal-minded socialist, I wonder why many conservatives are unwilling or unable to treat me as fairly in this same manner.

Those on the right tend to think in terms of either/or. Those on the left, or at least the liberal-minded left, tend to think in terms of both/and. Examples of this are seen everywhere.

Let me use the abortion issue as a representative example.

For social conservatives, abortion is a conflict between civil liberties and moral responsibility. Conservatives say they want to eliminate abortions, but ultimately it comes down to moral principle rather than practical results.

Liberals point out that countries with abortion bans don’t have fewer abortions, some even have more than average. More importantly, abortion bans lead to more dangerous illegal abortion practices which leads to damaged fetuses and hence babies being born with deformities and brain damage, plus abortion bans lead to the mothers themselves often being harmed or dying (and if the baby survives it will grow up without a mother). The only policies that have ever proven to decrease abortions are libeal policies (promotion of women’s health centers, comprehensive sex education, easy availability of contraception and birth control, etc). So, to a liberal, they don’t see a conflict between civil liberties and moral responsibility, and in fact they see moral responsibility as not possible without protection of civil liberties.

The liberal doesn’t want to take away the conservative’s right to choose not to have an abortion and neither does the liberal want the conservative to take away everyone else’s right to choose. The liberal ultimately wants to decrease the number of abortions more than the average social conservative because the liberal sees the life of the fetus as being part of the civil liberties discussion. The liberal sees nuance and complexity, but the conservative sees only their own unbending principles. Doing the right thing for the conservative is more important than any practical result. Despite liberals wanting to work with conservatives in developing a compromise, conservatives see compromise as defeat for the reason that even they recognize that compromise is a liberal value.

It’s because of the liberal mindset that I can desire BOTH a socialist society AND a free market economy. The liberal’s broad thinking reaches toward inclusiveness and so seeks out great visions that are up to the task. It seems that at present the conservative movement as a whole is incapable of this type of thinking and so treating their opponents fairly is outside of their ability as a movement. That said, individual conservatives may have more liberal predispositions in this sense and so coalitions may be formed with certain segments of the conservative movement. However, such coalitions aren’t as likely with more typically mainstream conservatives such as my dad, although that may be changing as the old conservative frames are being challenged.

10 thoughts on “Socialism: Conservative’s ‘Colloquial’ Definition

  1. Both socialism and capitalism are outgrowths of liberal modernity. The left was always rooted in liberalism, but we have moved past it now ultimately. Liberalism is the current traditionalism and the moment has regressed: to save what is good in liberalism one must stop being a liberal politically speaking. However, one can still be a liberal in one’s personal life as the political values of liberalism in its congressional context in the US aren’t liberal anymore.

    • I’m not a big fan of quibbling over labels. You have your own definition of liberalism, a definition many liberals disagree with. There is no single true liberalism. Nothing needs to be abandoned except maybe the desire to force one’s definitions onto others.

      Some liberals have taken a position of status quo ‘traditionalism’, but not all and I doubt even most. I do like consistency in labels or at least an understanding of the differences in usage. However, in this case, I’m not sure a single definition of liberal politics is overly useful since by definition it is a broad category.

      As for myself, I’ve basically abandoned using the label because there are too many definitions, but I won’t dismiss the label or the definition used by many liberals who oppose the status quo ‘traditionalism’. Yes, some in the mainstream elite have coopted the term ‘liberal’, both on the ‘right’ and the ‘left’. And for this reason, the ‘liberal’ label has become confused. But these mainstream elites and their usage of labels doesn’t represent the vast majority of average liberals.

      If you let the mainstream elite to win every battle of words, then you’ll find yourself in constant retreat. If you accept the mainstream elites’ definition of liberalism, then eventually you’ll be forced to accept the mainstream elite’s definition of socialism and Marxism. You have to make a stand somewhere and defend further encroachment.

      • Liberals and leftists have too often engaged in a battle of words that they cannot win. Primarily because the battle isn’t really about words. That’s Lakoff’s fundamental mistake. The battle is about cultural and economic power, and the liberal imagination has been limited by conceding entirely too much economic power to the other side functionally.

        • It seems to me that the right has won because they’ve become so adept at the battle of words. I’m not saying the left should copy the tactics of the right such as creating a left version of Fox News and K Street or whatever else. I’m not for propaganda on either side.

          That said, I see your point. But I still think words are more powerful than the mere framing that Lakoff puts forth. The battle is about cultural and economic power, but that battle needs to be communicated through words. When this battle is reported in the news and most Americans listen, whose terms and labels are used by the reporters and pundits? Whose narrative plays out on the screen?

          Economic power and verbal power are closely aligned. I don’t even really understand all of this. Like everything, its complex. This is just something I have an intuitive sense about, but maybe I’m wrong.

    • The side that wins the battle of defining the terms will win the battle of politics. To control definitions is to control the narrative. Once the narrative has been set in place, it is almost impossible to fight against it. If left-wingers support the mainstream elite in redefining ‘liberalism’, you’ve already given your opponent the advantage. Liberalism is one of the key battlefields. I wouldn’t concede it so easily.

      • Liberalism, in a way, isn’t just be conceded. It was the impulse that produced itself and the modern left and modern right typologically speaking. In early periods of development, the difference between a progressive socialist and a progressive capitalist were thinner than they are now.

        • Maybe so in some ways. But obviously I emphasize things differently. I see no clear or absolute distinction between a left-liberal and a liberal left-winger. It was as a liberal and because of my liberalism that I was drawn to the liberal left of Thoreau and Paine, a very American worldview it seems to me, neither Thoreau or Paine attempting to force something radical onto society but working within and through the culture they grew up in. Nonetheless, even by today’s standards, Thoreau and Paine sound plenty radical and even revolutionary.

    • Here is my suggested tactic.

      The left should seek to control the middle. Once control is gained, the middle can be shifted leftward which shift the entire political spectrum leftward. This will force the Republicans to move into the former middle where Democrats now reside. This will force liberals into a more radical position where formerly radical positions will become more normalized. And this will then given left-wingers more breathing room and more ability to influence the entire political field.

      Even for those who advocate revolutionary change (i.e., rupture), they would first want to prepare the population to embrace massive change. But either way the middle is where the political narrative is controlled and so controlling the middle is to control the reality tunnel of an entire population.

      • The left has been trying to seek to control the middle and in doing so moves more and more right–this is true in both socialist and capitalist countries, but what the right was very different (Socialist right would Stalin). I don’t know that we can control the middle, but we do need to speak to it, directly.

        • That is the difference. There is trying and achieving.

          The left has been trying to control the middle and has failed, hence the spectrum moving right. The left-wing has been trying to achieve radical reform or revolution and has failed, hence the spectrum moving right. The right and the right-wing, on the other hand, has tried and succeeded in controlling the middle and undoing reform.

          Why is it that the right is so successful when the left isn’t? Are you implying the left will always fail and so should give up the game entirely to go off and play its own game?

          Are you familiar with the generational theory of Strauss and Howe? I think they understand a key piece about how social and political change happens. Seeking reform or revolution during the wrong time will just lead to frustration and failure. But at the right time, if the soil has been prepared and the seeds planted, massive change can happen as if out of nowhere.

          Without an understanding these cycles, activism becomes a fumbling in the dark which can lead to walking off of cliffs. When it is dark, sit still and listen. If you know the cycle when the sun will come up, you’ll be ready for your opponent before they are even awake. It’s maybe something like how Washington and his small army could defeat the Hessians despite their having no dry gun powder to shoot their guns.

          Just a thought.

Please read Comment Policy before commenting.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s