The obsolete fear of socialism in this country is bizarre — especially from an outside point of view. I’m now better able to analyze the matter from the inside, having lived in this country for a while now, but this irrational fear doesn’t seem any less bizarre. When I see propaganda stating the current American government has a “socialist” agenda, I can’t help but ask myself: Are the people and/or organizations sponsoring this information antiquated or ignorant, or do they just want to mislead?Recent accusations of socialism are just as awkward and untruthful as some post-WWII propaganda — you know, the kind that portrayed communists as murderers and children-eaters. It has the same fantastic approach as telling little children they better go to sleep, or the bogeyman is coming to get them.For those spreading these misleading announcements, a brief look at some history books — or, simpler than that, a Google search — would elucidate my point. Socialist governments are remnants of the past. Socialist (or Communist) movements that became governments failed, proved to be incapable of putting to reality the theoretically beautiful principles they predicated. We’re talking about dictatorships that not only restrained basic human rights but also killed people who opposed their government.So, a closer look at the socialism history and process will bring us to what’s become of the movement after the fall of those governments: the social-democracy.
Cutting to the chase, social democrats in Europe radically changed socialism, combining free market with social policies. This blend of concepts and flexibility is what kept them in power for so many years in countries like Sweden. Read this, from the new Declaration of Principles in the 18th Congress of the Socialist International in 1989: “Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society.” Sounds good to me. What do you think? It sounds just like what every government (capitalist, socialist, anythingist) should pursue for its people.But calm down. I’m not saying we should geaux democratic-socialist. Let me say again a curious thing about Brazil (where I’m from), regarding this ideological quarrel. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva comes from a leftist background rooted in his history as a labor union leader. Most of his constituents expected a “socialist” revolution when he took office, and thus the revocation of neoliberal economic measures the previous government took. He did not live out these expectations (thank God). When he kept the liberal economic orientation from the previous government, the media and the people attacked him severely. You could say he was accused of “having a capitalist agenda.” As usual, there are many sides to the same issue. Governments, by definition, are supposed to “regulate” fields of society. If this weren’t the case, why would we have governments in the first place? Why choose people to represent us if they can’t create rules to guarantee our welfare? Regulation doesn’t mean socialism. And capitalism doesn’t mean exploitation.By the 10th year of this 21st century, after so many economical and political comings and goings, we should be able to realize and absorb a convenient truth: To oppose ideas that are complementary doesn’t help us in the difficult and necessary task of (re)building a fair society, no matter if you`re black or white, capitalist or socialist — a Saints or a Colts fan.Marcelo Viera is a 32-year-old jazz cello graduate student from Brazil. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_mviera. —-Contact Marcelo Viera at [email protected]