There's been a lot of talk this election cycle about Socialism; most often as an indictment against liberal Democrats.  It is almost always used as a pejorative.  But, is it?  Why are conservatives quick to lay the charge on liberals, and why are liberals equally quick to run away from it?  Simply and classically stated, Socialism is about collective (i.e. government) ownership and administration of the means of production.  It advocates a "fairer" distribution of goods so that a more egalitarian society may result.  Socialists believe that capitalism concentrates wealth and power and that leads to inequities in the socio-economic strata.  The intention is certainly noble; it's the residue that's problematic.

Often times, our idealism gets in the way of common sense.  In our zeal to improve the lot of the less fortunate, we regularly and mistakenly conclude that government should be the fixer, rather than the enabler.  If we only had a greater appreciation for history, it would be easier to be less blinded by our more quixotic instincts.  Ask yourself:

• Are there numerous examples of successfully run large and complex government programs?
• Should we expect that the government will improve in its capacity to run these programs, particularly if more and more programs are added to the mix?
• How can entrepreneurship, the engine of innovation, flourish when the government is responsible for a central plan?
• How can our economy be nimble and vibrant if the efforts of thousands and millions of enterprising individuals are replaced with a single government bureaucracy?
• Is it not the trial and error efforts of millions of individuals that enable us to identify the best solutions?  Is it reasonable to believe we can get to the same endpoint with but one dictated government plan?
• What has been the common economic approach of failed and failing countries?

Perhaps the classical form of Socialism discussed above isn't right for the 21st century?  Maybe there is a softer-edged version that might blend synergistically with a capitalist system?  Let's call it Social-Capitalism for lack of a better term.  Can we be half pregnant with socialism?  Norman Thomas, the deceased, 6-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America had an interesting thought on the matter, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

A different philosophy was espoused by John Stuart Mill, the most renowned of the so called Utopian Socialists.  He was a proponent of capitalism, but he believed it was merely a stepping stone to a more ideal state.  He thought that capitalism would run its course and ultimately be superseded by a form of benign socialism where the focus is shifted to notions of liberty and justice.

As I've stated in previous posts, Europe is a terrific example of the failure of creeping socialism.  It demonstrates the flaws in Mill's notion of utopia.  In Europe, innovation is a fraction of what it once was.   Incentives to produce and excel have been drastically reduced.  Personal responsibility has declined sharply, and a sense of entitlement has increased markedly.  What Mill missed, I believe, is that liberty and justice are best delivered when individuals control their destiny, and government doesn't dictate, but enables all to participate.