Socialism; This Year’s Dirty Word.

Last updated on August 10th, 2014 at 11:56 pm

President Obama’s Socialist views tend to surface in nearly every conversation. Yet the majority of people aren’t entirely sure what being a Socialist actually means. The wealthy spit out the word Socialist bitterly and with scrunched faces: do they smell something horrible? Even the most liberal citizens, siding with Obama to the top of the hill, are slightly afraid of this word… Socialism.

Let me lay it out and stop meandering: Socialism is, by concept, the layover to Communism (another dirty word). But that isn’t a required flight of Socialism. The difference is Communism has set philosophies, doctrines; a particular way of doing things. Socialism is agnostic—uncommitted. This means whoever has the power to direct Socialists ideals can mold them to fit within whatever paradigm is needed.

The wealthy may not understand that their wealth is a part of an aged system beginning with America’s Founders and founding citizens. Debt is an institution in this country, as poor mechanics, for example, in the 1500s were encouraged to not request payment in paper money or coin, leading to the higher possibility of debt. And when you have debt there is automatically an antithesis formed—those who garner money are wealthy because debt exists. You had land surveyors controlling the land and forcing the poor to work and pay off a debt they couldn’t possibly negate. And when this happened, the surveyors took the land and resold it for profit, increasing their wealth.

To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.

This reality may not be initially known to today’s elite class tasting Socialism’s bitter flavor. Fast forward to the 21st century and the Bank’s knock at your elderly mother’s door with an unlimited loan contract—borrow any amount against your home, just sign on the dotted line. The trick is, your elderly mother cannot possibly pay off or spend that money in her short lifetime, so when she perishes and defaults, the Bank then owns her property, likely worth more than the loan or money spent from that loan.

I digress. Somewhat. Though only to support the following ideas:

A Capitalist society is designed to garner personal property. (It’s my party and I can cry if I want to syndrome). Everyone is agitated due to the ill-placed fear of having what is theirs made into what is ours, made into what is no one’s, right? Communism removes ownership from the individual and gives it to a governmental entity. This entity then doles necessary items (food, clothing, shelter, etc) out to its citizens. The men and women of power have full control. The individual loses strength. It can be philosophized Communism is simply a program for the government to better control its citizens through the veil of equality.

That is not Obama’s Socialism. The President’s Socialism yearns to bridge the gaps between our nation’s class systems, with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as excellent support. This is the main difference between other Socialist and Communist governments. By introducing the correct Socialist ideas into a Capitalist country, by requesting that citizens with mass amounts of wealth give to those with less, we can reinvigorate an economy which is dying on its debt-debt-debt and more debt principles. Since Socialism is seen as Communism in a less ugly miniskirt, we have those in positions to jumpstart change resisting.

Uh oh. It’s that dirty word again. How about we don’t look at the word, and instead, shoot right to the ever-fluxing definition. This New Socialism requires humans be good hearted; givers, willingly sacrificing to live in an America where all citizens have the promised tools to reinvest and don’t have to struggle to their last dying breath.