In general the left in the US will benefit from an understanding of what socialism actually is, so every time this phrase comes up, we need to shoot it down until it dies.
In general the left in the US will benefit from an understanding of what socialism actually is, so every time this phrase comes up, we need to shoot it down until it dies.
Why exactly does this phrase need to die? It seems like a very easy reference for someone who is not familiar with socialism. What makes it such an issue to use?
It has nothing to do with socialism really. It's a subsidy.
Socialism isn't just handing people free money like the government does for the rich. It makes it seem like all we need to do is just print off imaginary money for workers and the economy will be saved rather than transform the entire formation of the mode of production. The phrase also obscures class dynamics. It'd be more illuminating to say that the government/state is the arm of the dominant capitalist class rather than this "socialism for the rich" sloganeering.
I've never heard socialism for the rich interpreted as handing out free money. Every time someone brought it up to me, it was about how the rich has access to social services like healthcare, ambulance rides, public transportation, and pensions, that lower classes can only dream of affording right now.
"Socialism for the rich" perpetuates the idea that socialism is when the government does stuff. We need to get back to the original meaning of socialism which, even before Marx's scientific socialism, was the idea of a society governed for the benefit of society itself, rather than for a privileged class like the royal family, the aristocracy or the bourgeoisie.
Maybe this is just because I've been an unrepentant wonk for so long, but I have mostly heard the term in the context of massive tax breaks for corporations. The Democrats have a very difficult time articulating the idea that a tax cut is actually a budgetary expense, so this sort of language is what they resort to. The few that care about it, that is. Most of them couch tax cuts in terms of "opportunity" or somesuch other similar weasel nonsense.
Yeah, I've always assumed that it was in relation to financial safety nets that are in place for the rich, and it's usually coupled with talk about rugged independence (no safety net) for the poor.