As you well know by now, gentle reader, I am not ideologically conservative. In fact, I’m somewhat left of centre, as they say in polite circles. I am used to being called a “bleeding heart”, “commie”, “pinko scum”, and other affectionate appellations. They come with the territory. (Good practice for being a writer, as a matter of fact. Helps build up the ole rhino hide and whatnot.) But what really riles me at the moment, is the bandering about of the term “socialism” for every ill of the capitalist system.

And, make no mistake, with the current financial crisis, we are talking about a HUGE collapse of confidence in financial systems due to FREE MARKET, UNREGULATED, CAPITALIST strategies. Sorry to have to put all that in boldface, but I think it’s appropriate that people think on that for a bit. When we talk about Cuba or spoke about the former Soviet Union, the terms used are/were invariably the ills associated with “communist regimes”. However, now that we’re talking about the meltdown of finance and a looming global recession (I’ve been following Roubini), it’s “banks” and “financial systems” that are mentioned, not the ills associated with “capitalist regimes”. And, make no mistake, we’re talking regimes here. Definition please, Ms. Dictionary:

regi’me, n. method of government; prevailing system of things.

But, of course, we can’t use that term, can we? It’s “communist/repressive regimes” and “capitalist democracies”. As if, by opposing bailouts of banks who should have known better, you’re somehow also, ipso facto, against democracy. Keep your eyes open next time you peruse a paper and tell me I’m wrong.

So, that’s the first quibble: an unequitable distribution of emotion-laden nouns and adjectives. The second is the use of the term “socialism”. How did it come about that rich, white guys managed to talk their friends in government (*) into (1) getting rid of all regulation regarding leverage limits on lendings, and then — when it all went pear-shaped — (2) convince the US Treasury to hand over a minimum of US1.3 trillion to keep themselves in business, and have the newspapers and various politicians call it “socialism“???? It beggars the mind. Shouldn’t we, instead, be calling it a thieving conspiracy? The rise again of the Robber Barons? Extortion? Laziness? Greed? Irresponsibility? But, no, the term that sticks to the wall is “socialism”.

Well, I’m a socialist, and I don’t approve the use of that term in that context. Especially as Noam Chomsky points out in a recent essay in the Irish Times:

Such interventionism [where narrow sectors are calling for massive state intervention to rescue collapsing financial institutions] is a regular feature of state capitalism [my very decided emphasis].

Chomsky goes on to say that:

A study by international economists Winfried Ruigrok and Rob van Tulder 15 years ago found that at least 20 companies in the Fortune 100 would not have survived if they had not been saved by their respective governments …. Such government intervention “has been the rule rather than the exception over the past two centuries”, they conclude [again, my tedious emphasis].

Get it? It’s capitalism in a non-democratic environment that’s producing the current quakes and I’m sick to the teeth of having the word “socialism” act as the propagandistic shield behind which all this extortion and greed is taking place.

(*) Oh, didn’t you know that Paulson was Chief Executive of Goldman Sachs before he took the position of Treasury Secretary? And that Goldman’s biggest rival was Lehman which, unfortunately, the US Treasury refused to bail out? But that AIG was/is heavily invested by Goldman and — lookee here — it got rescued (saving Goldman Sachs US$20billion)? So, a third point is, when you start talking about “the government”, be very very sure you’re really talking about “the government” and not clearly transparent “personal agendas”, m’kay?