Almost exactly a year ago (Sep. 4, 2017), I posted a link to an article on socialism, including a few comments on the subject. The gist of my remarks was that, while I am optimistic about the relative open-mindedness of Millennials — namely, their willingness to even question concepts like capitalism — I am hesitant with the term socialism.
A study at Harvard University a couple years ago revealed that a thin majority of young adults (18-29 years old) do not support capitalism, while only 42 percent support it. Yet, only 33 percent support socialism. The takeaway here is that, at minimum, young adults are open to questioning the matter.
They might be unclear as to the precise meaning of those terms, but for Millennials and others, "capitalism" mainly translates as the kind of malfeasance and greed that brought down the world economy in 2008. That, as far as young adults are concerned, is sufficient reason to be suspicious.
Millennials tend not to view capitalism with the quasi-religious reverence of their parents (my generation, Generation X) and their grandparents. The latter cohort, labeled Baby Boomers, was raised on a rich diet of Cold War rhetoric and television programming that reinforced the precept that capitalist America wore the white hat, and communist Russia donned the black. Reality was irrelevant. History was irrelevant. The meaning of those words was irrelevant.
This invites a deeper analysis of why and how the Baby Boomers have made a poor showing, in many instances driving the country backwards over the last 40 years. (For the basics of what I am saying here, see Jim Tankersley’s piece in the Washington Post, Nov. 5, 2015.) My immediate concern is how they hear the word socialism.
Regardless of that generation's (and my generation's) confusion on the matter — that socialism equates to Sovietism, which it doesn't — the fact is that, when they hear the word, what is evoked are the hammer and sickle. And this will not change anytime soon, if ever. It is for this reason that I have misgivings over the word's usage.
Given the state of things — economic instability, income inequality, wage stagnation — it is unsurprising that a growing resistance is taking place. And as with any resistance, a new vocabulary emerges. Especially with Bernie Sanders's open use of the term socialism during his 2016 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, the word has reentered American politics. Adding to the phenomenon was of course last June's Democratic primary victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Her defeating the longtime incumbent in New York's 14th congressional district was only part of the upset; the other part was that Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Moreover, with her now being a high-wattage presence on the national stage, you will be hearing the word socialism more frequently.
My stated misgivings are my own, and I present them here merely to frame the subject. I have no illusions and am not attempting to police or alter the language; I know well that socialism is now part of the discourse. That said, a few things should be kept in mind as we near the midterms and 2020.
Last week on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Bernie Sanders stated the following: "I think the real issue is that the ideas that we've been talking about, almost without exception, are now ideas that are mainstream ideas and are supported by the vast majority of the American people." What he says here is correct. Policy initiatives like Medicare-for-all, raising the minimum wage, and free public college are in fact mainstream and enjoy majority support.
Yet, while they can maybe be labeled progressive, especially given the status quo, they are not necessarily socialist. As some have correctly pointed out, these are policy ideas that are in keeping with the New Deal, along with the more or less liberal administrations spanning the 1950s through to the 1970s.
Had the Democrats maintained and built on the notion of functioning as a true labor party, instead of marching rightward — to the point of effectively becoming the new Republican Party — these kinds of policies might very well today be their stock in trade. In other words, had they held their line and maintained a liberal/progressive orientation, the Democrats would now be, in essence, a party operating according to the same "social democratic" principles on display in Scandinavia.
The distinction here is worth noting. "Democratic socialists," like Ocasio-Cortez, take a more traditional socialist position. According to the DSA's website, "As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people."
Democratic socialism's core philosophy is therefore a kind of radical democracy, with an eye toward post-capitalism and eventual worker ownership and control of companies. Reform now, true socialism later.
Social democracy — as opposed to democratic socialism — does not advocate the overthrow of capitalism, but instead seeks to create the best possible circumstances within the capitalist model. Concepts such as basic income and universal healthcare are easily compatible with a corporatist structure. The socioeconomics of countries like Sweden and Denmark are examples of social democracies; they have promoted reform and progress in their countries, yet retain market economies, and without seeking their dismantling.
The majority of Americans support Sanders's and Ocasio-Cortez's positions (for more detail, see my 2016 article, "The Nation is Not Divided," on Counterpunch), that is, they desire a more social democratic arrangement — though are unaware of the fact. However, the majority of Americans are not in favor of revolution or overthrowing corporate capitalism. What they want is reform of the present system, which is exactly what is being proposed. What Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez (despite her DSA affiliation) are talking about is social democracy.
I feel it is important to keep these distinctions in mind, to stay focused on what the majority wants, and to not get lost in rhetoric and theory. The emphasis should be on improvement of present policy. Unfortunately, news coverage will be an obstacle. Without fail, the major news outlets are working to distract the public. While commentators and politicians to the right are always keen to use the word "socialist" as a scare tactic, the centrist-liberal media are also at work.
The New York Times has never been Bernie friendly, as it prides itself on standing guard over the left boundary of respectable liberal opinion. With the increased talk of socialism, naturally, one is seeing op-ed pieces such as Michael Tomasky's on August 5, in which he shared his "mixed feelings about this socialism boomlet" and "All these socialists coming out of the woodwork."
For the Times, anything to the left of Hillary Clinton and the new Republicans is treated with condescension; it goes without saying, in light of public opinion polls, this condescension extends to the majority of Americans.
For the Times, anything to the left of Hillary Clinton and the new Republicans is treated with condescension; it goes without saying, in light of public opinion polls, this condescension extends to the majority of Americans.
At both Fox News and the more centrist news organizations, the disparaging commentary will continue, despite the enormous benefits that their audiences and readerships stand to enjoy from such policies. In the present atmosphere in journalism, the priorities are brand protection and ideological alignment. By playing to their audiences, their audiences are getting played.
The word socialism is out there. And many will envision statues of Lenin when they hear it. The reality is that the reforms being discussed by Sanders and others are quite feasible and supported by the majority. People might not agree on what should become of corporate capitalism; but democracy is a good place to start the conversation.
