In her recent letter, Joy Bruns complains that, in an earlier letter, Caroline Storm had called Alaska Permanent Fund dividends socialist, which Ms. Bruns equates with being called “the scum of the earth.” But Ms. Storm’s point was that “socialist” is an honorable term that can, at least in some interpretations, refer to public services of many kinds.
There can be no pure capitalism without government, no pure market economy, and, on the other hand, almost no one advocates total government ownership of the means of production, which also couldn’t work. But most of us appreciate public provision of roads, schools, Social Security, Medicare, defense, etc.
Socialism, then – leaving aside its absurd extreme, as exemplified in the former USSR – means how much do we, as a society, acting through our government, want to invest in meeting public needs, and how much do we want to leave to markets (or to communities via charity, etc.)? What we’re arguing over is exactly how “socialist” we should be – a little, or a little more, or more than that? But there is no “slippery slope” to total socialism, no “road to serfdom” – that’s a “conservative” projection of dependency, in the service of the undeserving wealthy.
Rick Wicks
Anchorage
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.