By Carl Miller

THOSE WHO LISTEN to talk radio these days hear the word “socialism” thrown around quite a bit by rightwing talk radio pundits and cable news channel commentators.

They expound endlessly on the evils associated with this system: government control, obedience to an all powerful state and its “elite,” an enforced “equality of poverty” for all.

They claim that Mr. Obama is going to take the country down the road to a socialist future and we will all become slaves to the government.

Does socialism mean what they claim, or does it mean something completely different?

Is Mr. Obama a socialist or is the right wing simply using their usual tactics to smear and vilify a president who is not in lockstep with their ideology? Should it matter to workers?

First, let us take a look at the question of Mr. Obama’s supposedly socialist policies.

The current economic crisis gives us plenty of clues as to where the president’s allegiances lie. We need only focus on the bailouts of Wall Street and its various capitalist enterprises to realize that Mr. Obama is little concerned with the plight of the common working person.

He sought to prop up the current system by ensuring that the exploitation of labor continues unabated and that the profits of the wealthy few who own these huge enterprises should continue also. He encouraged job cuts and whatever measures were necessary to make these corporations more efficient and competitive.

Along with this, he stood by and allowed the continued erosion of organized labor on a mass scale. All of these and more were conditions for giving stimulus money to these ailing businesses.

Now, does this sound like someone dedicated to a socialist future? By what socialist standard can or should we judge him and his actions?

IT MIGHT BE prudent as well to take a look at the evolution of the meaning of the word socialism. Around the turn of the 20th century, socialism meant something completely different from what it has come to mean today.

Socialism was portrayed to be a democratic system where those who did the work had ownership and control of not only the tools used to produce what we need to live and enjoy life, but also the product of their collective labor.

A key feature of this philosophy was that workers would no longer work for wages, but would receive in return for their labor the full social value of what they produced.

Over the following years, various groups popped up claiming that socialism meant something else — that through advocating for various reforms and voting so-called socialist candidates into office, they could moderate the harsh effects of capitalism and eventually bring about a system where the exploitative capitalist production could be brought into harmony with the needs and interests of the working class.

Other groups and even governments of other countries came and went that claimed to be socialist, but actually only served to pervert and distort the true meaning of the word.

As a result of this confusion, the word socialism has become virtually meaningless. It has hundreds of meanings — some worthy of praise, but most others better off forgotten.

This confusion has led to a malaise in the ranks of working people. We know instinctively that the present system does not function for our benefit, but what alternatives are out there?

No one wants to struggle for something that would lead to a Soviet-style dictatorship, or to a system that carries the label of socialism but in reality is no better than what they had before.

Because of this confusion, a name for a system once held in high esteem and struggled for around the world has been stolen from us.

THIS BRINGS US back to our rightwing friends who pollute the talk radio and television airwaves on a daily basis.

We as workers must recognize that their job, first and foremost, is to use any means necessary to demonize, ridicule and belittle any philosophy that is not in line with the ideals of capitalism.

Their primary function is to extol the virtues of the “free enterprise” system and to make sure we continue to believe that there are no realistic alternatives to that system. Anyone, or any philosophy, who stands against that system is a criminal, a traitor and is mentally ill.

How can we, as thinking individuals, buy into anything they say about a system they are so obviously against and is so obviously against us?

Unfortunately, millions buy into these lies on a daily basis. They are convinced that what they say about socialism is the truth, because there are no mainstream voices that say otherwise.

Even liberal talk shows claim basically the same things in a more subdued manner.

The point is that both sides, liberal and conservative, seek to maintain the status quo, and we as workers must judge what they say based on our knowledge of the class struggle.

The WIIU has as its goal a social, political and economic system that most resembles the socialism advocated at the turn of the 20th century.

We are currently in the process of discussing what a system like the one we advocate should be properly called and will bring this before our founding convention to be held in January.

However, it is already obvious to us that to call it socialism would throw us into a trash heap with those who have only confused and confounded the working class over the last century.

What’s in a name? In this case, it could mean the difference between confusion and clarity.

It could mean the difference between having our voices heard and simply being tossed aside as just another “socialist” group among many who sound basically the same as all the others.

Join with us and help to shape the future vision and voice of the WIIU. Help us with our goal of building a system that will benefit everyone and ensure a brighter future for all people, no matter what it’s called.