Public Comment

In January 2023,, the House passed HR9, a resolution denouncing socialism. The resolution states, “Congress denounces socialism in all its forms, and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America.” I bet many of the House members (or many in the public at large) who voted for HR9 could not explain what they mean by socialism. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) called it for what the resolution is: “This resolution is little about intelligent discourse and everything to do about laying the groundwork to cut Social Security and Medicare.” 

Too many Americans think socialism equals that old bogeyman called communism, attributing the "greatest crimes in history” to socialist “ideologies” like Vladimir Putin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hugo Chávez, Nicolás Maduro, and Daniel Ortega. However, communism is primarily a political system whereas socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems. 

Why does the word "socialism" cause fear and trembling to many Americans? To me it basically means a redistribution of wealth or publicly-funded programs that capitalism would not pay for. We already have many so-called socialistic programs in the U.S. such as our progressive tax system, social security, public housing, unemployment insurance, medicare, schools, libraries, etc. I like to think that many of these programs provide social safety nets for the have-nots in our society who otherwise would fall through the cracks when unregulated capitalism goes awry or in emergencies like the coronavirus pandemic. Looked at this way, socialism equals compassion for the less fortunate in our society. 

The U.S. has a mixed economy, exhibiting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. Such a mixed economy embraces the free market when it comes to capital use, but it also allows for government intervention for the public good. 

The following quote from perhaps the most respected advocate of a free-market economy. Adam Smith, in "The Wealth of Nations" wrote, "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” 

What's to be afraid of?