Socialism has a tarnished reputation in the United States; not because of its ideological precepts, but because it has been portrayed as something other than what it is.

Socialism is neither communism nor fascism, despite many people — frequently right-wing propagandists — using those terms interchangeably and simultaneously. The context in which those terms are used tends to be one of generic political criticism, which is to say that people use the words “socialist,” “communist” or “fascist” as synonyms for “bad guy.” This, I believe, is an effort to portray a realistic alternative to laissez-faire capitalism as pure evil by lumping it in with failed ideologies of the 20^th century.

Communism does not permit individuals to own property or means of production privately; it implies central planning when implemented on the national level and enforces economic equality.

Socialism propounds that economic activity should not be carried out to the detriment of national interests. It posits that sectors of the economy involving essential national interests ought be regulated, if not nationalized, to ensure that the health of the state is not undermined by industry.

While socialism does call for the redistribution of excessive wealth, it does not imply that everyone should be paid the same wage or own the same amount of property; rather that there ought to be some restraint upon wealth to prevent private interests from seizing a disproportionate amount of control in government. Of course, every economic ideology redistributes wealth in some form or another, including capitalism. To be perfectly clear: Socialism is not against the ownership of property or relative inequality of wealth.

Fascism is an extreme extension of nationalism; it calls for single-party rule as well as the purging of those ideas — and often individuals — deemed incompatible with whatever “pure” conception of the world the fascist holds.

It is sometimes contended that the Nazis, since they called themselves “The National Socialist Workers’ Party,” were socialist as well as fascist. This simply is not true; sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. If you are inclined to believe Nazis were socialist because they used the word in their description, then you must also acknowledge Egypt to be a republic and North Korea to be a democracy.

In any case, socialism is not fascist because it does not draw upon nationalism, nor does it require a single party or person to be in control of the government. Socialism is almost the polar opposite of fascism.

Socialism can be thought of as a political movement, aimed at changing the structure of governments, but it can also be thought of as guiding ideology for economic policy. It is this second concept of socialism I am talking about: economic socialism, an alternative to capitalism.

There is nothing inherently American about capitalism. Nowhere in the Constitution did the founders, or amenders for that matter, stipulate a system by which the economy is to be run. The Constitution is an enumeration of powers and an acknowledgment of rights; it does not bind us to any economic destiny.

As you are aware, our economic destiny is at the forefront of national- and state-level political debates. We are in the midst of an enduring financial crisis that is the sum of many complex causes, and there is no shortage of narratives as to how we got here. I do not presume to fully understand the causes of this crisis, nor will I be so arrogant as to try to pin them down specifically, but there are some things apparent for everyone to see.

The actions of a powerful few individuals in the financial sector have contributed greatly to the economic status quo, but many of those individuals have prospered personally as a result. The division between wealthy and poor is becoming sharper as those in the middle class are sliding downward, while the rich are ascending to even greater levels of affluence; opportunity for economic mobility has been substantially diminished.

What this tells me is that when economic activity is not ordered to the common good of the nation, it will be shaped to serve the private good of the few at the expense of the many; and that those few, with their ever-growing wealth, will exert their considerable political might to ensure the continuance of this destructive process. In turn, it will become increasingly unlikely that a person of modest means will ever be able to improve his or her economic status, no matter how hard he or she works; the deck is being stacked, and capitalism is the mechanism that stacks it. 

When legislators propose policies to regulate economic activity, to raise taxes on the wealthy, or to fund programs that address a common concern — e.g. health insurance reform — they are often derided as “socialists.” In this respect, the critics of such legislators are not entirely inaccurate; such policies do indeed vaguely resemble socialism, but they do not reach the threshold.

Were those legislators actually socialists, they would advocate for things such as fully nationalized health care and universities, progressive taxation, strict limits upon the size of inheritable wealth, and financial supplementation to jobholders below the poverty line; basically the assurance of dignity and equal economic opportunity for all citizens as well as checks against any person becoming too influential by means of wealth. What is lost under socialism is the ability to be a Donald Trump or a Paris Hilton, what is gained in exchange is a national community that does not let its citizens slip through the cracks.

But socialism is not a radical, fringe ideology: Last year, Robert Reich, secretary of labor under the Clinton administration, released a book, “Aftershock,” analyzing the current economic crisis and recommending socialist economic policies. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who served in the House of Representatives for 16 years, identifies himself as a democratic socialist. And, of course, nearly every Western European nation has prominent socialist parties, such as the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, to which Tony Blair, former prime minister, belongs.

I am a socialist and I am advocating for socialist economic policy in the U.S.; I am not making an attempt to conceal my goal of spreading socialist thought with this column.

I imagine a number of you reading this will find my factual assertions to be in error, even those distinguishing socialism from other ideologies, and that is fine. It is not my desire that those who read this column will simply agree with me because they are persuaded; I want you to think about what I have written here, to question it and to conduct your own fact-finding so that you may reach an informed opinion regarding socialism as well as capitalism.

Keep in mind, though, that anyone advocating for or against economic ideologies has a material incentive to obscure facts and confound debates. I have observed, for example, that the wealthier a person is — or believes he or she will someday be — the more staunchly he or she tends to portray laissez-faire capitalism as an incarnation of liberty.

This is simply to say that a person’s stake in economic policy depends largely upon how much a person already owns. I am not asking you to be an altruist; I am asking you to be rational in your self-interest. If you are, it is my belief that the vast majority of you will find socialist economic policy to be a good thing; not just for the country, but for you personally.