Now we get to delve into the -isms that all

seem to involve bearded men … socialism and

communism. 

Now I’ve always been of the opinion that

socialism and communism are great ideas in theory, just not in

practice. Luckily, this column is about political theories and not

the implementation of them. Now, I didn’t vote for Obama in the

last election by any means, but I still would by no means classify

him as a socialist. In fact, he has spoken of his desire for a free

market, something at which socialists would

cringe. Socialism is a classless society in which

resources are controlled either through the state or

cooperatively. A free market is exactly the opposite, a market that

isn’t controlled. Granted, things like bailouts for companies don’t

exactly promote a free market, but it’s still a far cry from being

controlled by the state. 

Theorists whom many are familiar with include

Marx, Engels and Lenin, as well as Robert Owen, who preached of a

utopian socialism. Socialism is actually a precursor to

communism. Socialism is a society in which the proletariat (or the

working class) bring down the dictatorship of the capitalists (or

bourgeoisie) and replace it with their own rule in which production

and resources are realized through socialization. It is only after

the realization of socialization and revolution (preferably

violent) that communism can be achieved in which society exists in

a classless and stateless state. Some countries such

as China, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Hungary have established

semi-socialist states in which production is under the control of

the government. However, despite whatever label they choose to put

on their government, no truly communist (classless and stateless)

state has been achieved. 

Socialists may sometimes argue that their

theory seeks to fully utilize our labor and technology to make

society as efficient as possible without the concentration of

wealth or power. Welfare is something that stems from this, as

socialism does tend to strive to provide for the most needy. While

people go about doing this differently, I would argue that this is

more out of compassion than political theory. It stresses

cooperation rather than competition, providing for the neediest,

and criticizes private property. Because the

government has control of production, it is able to take whatever

profits it received and (theoretically) divide them among the

people. 

Socialism and communism are two –isms that are

especially prone to misuse because they are difficult to

understand, especially in a country where they aren’t in

practice. This is a brief overview, and people from Albert Einstein

to Che Guevara have voiced their opinion on the subject. Each

theorist has his own take on it because it is purely that,

theory. The problem comes when people use the word for the pure

sake of name-calling. The theory itself isn’t really that

repulsive. I mean, the end goal is a utopia. Sounds fair enough to

me. The problem is in the implementation and, in my personal

opinion, the need for human beings to have personal motivation not

just motivation for the public good. 

So there we have it. A brief overview of the

–isms most commonly distorted, maimed and beaten over the head with

a stick by both Democrats and Republicans alike: conservatism,

liberalism, socialism and communism. Instead of throwing around

words we don’t understand and condoning people for their political

theories, take a minute to truly look at the politician and

criticize the specific policies you don’t agree with instead of the

general theory. Each has its positives and its negatives, and it’s

up to us as a supposedly informed public to get past the petty

name-calling and actually look at the content.