Joe the Plumber said Obama’s plan to use taxes “to spread the wealth around” was socialist so it turns out there is a reason that plumbers aren’t normally commentators on political theory. Still, that hasn’t stopped many Republicans, including John McCain from buying into this charge.
Why is it that the Republicans have such an easy time calling people socialists when they have such a hard time understanding what the term means?
Socialism vs. Radical Egalitarianism
Socialism has a simple and straight forward theoretical meaning and an equally simple and straightforward practical meaning. The theoretical meaning is that the people own the means of production, and other stuff, instead of individuals and corporations. The practical meaning is that the government owns stuff instead of individuals and corporations.
Tax rates and government ownership of things are two completely different issues. Governments can and do impose strict progressive taxes without any government ownership of things. The United States had top level marginal tax rates of around 90% throughout the 1950s, far more than anything even being proposed now: were we socialists then and I just didn’t hear about it?
These days there is a lot of support for taxing the rich because “the rich don’t pay their fair share” or “the rich can afford it” or “they don’t deserve the money.”
These arguments stem from Radical Egalitarianism. Egalitarianism, fairness is often viewed as the idea that there is a level playing field. Everyone has a fair chance but then there are winners and losers and the winners can keep their prizes.
Radical Egalitarianism takes this a step farther and defines fairness as equal outcomes. Thus the income gap between the rich and the poor is unfair by definition. The winners can’t keep their prizes because they must have cheated.
One way to address the income gap is socialism, you take away all the rich people’s stuff and their ability to profit via investment. Another, and very different, way is to use steeply progressive taxes to get a similar effect. The tax method can be used by fascist or even, as in the US in the 50s, by fairly capitalist societies.
Thus all socialists are radical egalitarians but not all radical egalitarians are socialists. This subtlety is what I think eluded Joe the Plumber and eludes many Republicans to this day.
Why Is The Difference Important
If you are yelling “Socialists” at people who obviously aren’t socialists, you lose credibility. That’s reason #1 to pay attention.
Reason #2 is that the counter arguments are different for dealing with Radical Egalitarianism. You have to match your anti-tax arguments to people’s pro-tax motivations.
Reason #3 is that name calling of any type feeds into the general polarization of politics which, as I have discussed, works to the advantage of mean green liberals.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 0 comments… add one now }