Social Democracy 101: Jack London at Yale

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

Visions of the government taking people’s private property and creating a forced industrial environment whereby the basket weaver gets paid the same as the surgeon, I think would be intimidating to just about anyone. But, that is only one extreme end of the spectrum of socialism. Social democracy is at the other end of that spectrum. Social democracy is a system whereby the government and community play an active role in providing social continuity, and equal opportunity with an emphasis on offering an equal hand up to all. 

Under the Webster dictionary definition of being owned and controlled by the government and having no private property, the U.S. Military is a form of socialism. The US Postal System is a form of socialism. State and local police are forms of socialism as are all public schools and our social security programs. Yet, these and many other forms of socialism are regarded as the essential components of a system of governance. In essence, a society cannot function without a certain amount of socialism. Due to the intimidating usage of the word socialism, many don’t even want to utter the very word. The word itself has taken on boogeyman connotations since the beginning of the industrial revolution. 

In 1906, my great-grandfather Dr. Alexander Fitzgerald Irvine was the secretary of the Socialist Party of Connecticut and a fellow at Yale University where he taught studies in divinity. He sought to shed some light on the subject of social protection. He had first-hand experience as a reverend in the New Haven religious community. He became very aware of parishioner stealing and other forms of skulduggery used to acquire the most prosperous benefactors. He despised the practice of selectively seeking profitable parishioners while ignoring the plight of the downtrodden. He felt that this practice conflicted with Jesus’ teachings. 

My great-grandfather further believed that, due to this hypocrisy involving the church’s duty to the poor, the government needed to take an active role in offering a hand up to those in need. He strongly advocated that it should not be assumed that the church and pity be the sole final resources for those in need. 1906 was an era of industrialists commonly using hired muscle in taking advantage of their workers. The law was clearly on the side of the industry and the police became their hired guns. Before the Industrial Revolution, our founding fathers clearly wanted to allow the citizenry to be able to have a free voice and the opportunity to address social grievances in peaceful protest. So strongly did they feel this way, they incorporated these same principles in the first amendment of the bill of rights.