We throw words around like they're weapons in our country.
Republicans have long tossed around words meant to turn into scare words to demonize their opponents: communist, socialist, pinko, etc. In the 80s, Reagan and associates were reasonably successful in turning one of the two main political perspectives, liberal, into a curse word. For decades afterward, Democrats were cautious about using it. That may be still true here where I live in the Deep Southland.
And, yes, Democrats do similar things. Fascist, reactionary, authoritarian; those are just a few. I have used them a time or two myself. They're getting harder to avoid here in the Trump Era.
But they all may be missing the point.
My high school government teacher, Mr. Woods, a brilliant man, taught the traditional line version of a political spectrum. This had Conservatives on the right, and liberals on the left. At the far end of the right was fascism, and at the far end of the left was communism. When it became time for me to comment, he did not appreciate me going up to the board and redrawing at as a circle.
This was my contention. If you went far right or left enough what did it matter to the everyday people? What did ti matter to the average person if you were suffering under Hitler or Stalin? Whatever political motivation they used to get there, they still wound up murderous authoritarian regimes.
Of course, Mr. Woods thought I was childish, naive, and missing the point. And he was right, But not the way he was thinking. I was somewhat naive, but not quite the way Mr. Woods was thinking. My flaw was that a circle was still too basic.
It's actually more like Star Trek's seven-dimensional chess. We got lines and squiggles and pinpoints and multiple axes going ever which way!
It's too rich to explain in something less than a major doctoral dissertation But let me try to nutshell a bit of it.
We have the less government to more government scale. At one end is anarchy, a free reign madness that established no government or control. Libertarians are somewhere near the less government end of the spectrum. On the other side is authoritarian dictatorships. It is not clear that any particular political philosophy leads to this - in the extreme, many can. Monarchy and fascism are somewhere near the authoritarian end of the spectrum. So is a theocracy.
Within this, we have variants of who is in control, and how. Religion? The wealthy? An oligarchy of special interests?
Libertarians show how there is so much more than the simple scale of less government to more government. Get a hundred Libertarians in a room, and you will find that you will have a hundred distinct ideas of what libertarianism is, and what it means in conjunction to what less government is. Some mean social issues, but some are anti-abortion. Some want to strip the defense budget, others think it is the one great expense the government should do. It's a mess, but again, part of the reason our political scale is so complicated.
There is a range of government representation, and how it is configured. We can have a democratic government, with all voting and every office directly and proportionally represented, We have some systems that encourage multiple parties and others with only two, and some with only one effective party. Some are direct, some are replete with checks and balances, and some are pretty blatantly controlled by a small group of people (maybe even one person).
There is a range of economic models, from free-range market capitalism to pure communism, where the means of production are owned by all equally. Look hard for the pure forms of these - YOU WON"T FIND THEM. The Greeks had this idea that a perfect chair existed, but not in reality - only in a different plane that we could only imagine. It is impossible for a pure economic system to exist - the real world is too complex for that to work. Socialism is about an economic system that works for the benefit of all and not just a few.
There is also a range on social issues. Some who may want more government involvement in economic issues want less involvement in social and cultural issues, like those who want the government in the boardroom but not the bedroom, And this can also work vice versa.
So, all political systems are a mix of different systems and scales.
Venezuela may have some elements of socialism to it - one can consider the nationalization of its oil industry such a move. It's hard to see, however, how it's benefited their people. And it's a necessary measure to understand how important the qualifier of adding democratic to socialism is. Venezuela is an authoritarian regime, and you better believe it has cronies enriching themselves at the expense of the Venezuelan people.
Venezuela is not an example of Democratic Socialism. Hate on it all you want, but let's compare apples to apples. Democratic Socialist countries include Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium. Scary places, huh?
What are we? Well, we is one mighty mixed bag in this country, but our recent direction has been pretty disturbing. I would say we are, right now, a Capitalist Republic trending towards Oligarchy.
And when we look at Venezuela, and we look at it differently than other authoritarian countries, like Russia, North Korea, and Saudia Arabia, and spend beaucoup time vilifying it, and Bolton/Trump consider coups and invasions, why? What's unique about Venezuela, besides using it as a demon to scare people about the word socialist?
It's the oil, man. One of the largest oil reserves in the world. And our Capitalist Oligarchic Republic wants to control it, not to benefit you or the Venezuelan people, but to enrich themselves.
It's that simple.
Don't be driven mad by buzzwords. Look into the complete dimensional mess of politics and economics. It ain't easy, but if Captain Kirk could learn seven-dimensional chess, maybe the rest of us could learn a little bit about it as well.
PS: I don't know who wrote the meme at the start of this. It wasn't me. It came from a group called Politicked.
