Fans of irony will find interesting this depiction of one of the greatest achievements in history of democratic socialism: The U.S. National Defense Highway System, better known as the Interstate Highway System. Irony is that it is a key driver of the U.S. economy and has made possible great economic expansion that enriches capitalists greatly. From the Online Atlas.
Stunning how some people will say Bernie Sanders makes sense in one breath, then when hearing he calls himself a socialist, claim Bernie is nuts and a threat to America.
Sanders’s supporters fight back, some. The phenomenon I describe is strongest among self-proclaimed extreme conservatives, and so is not such a huge issue in the primaries as it would be in the general election, if it is an issue at all. A wise political strategist would not wait to confront the issue. It’s not an argument that can be answered with a bumper sticker.
Right wing publications take great pains to link any use of the word “socialism” with the now-repulsive violence of the Bolshevik Revolution and the autocratic nightmares of bureaucracy under the old Soviet-style government system, that even the Soviets abandoned. Right wingers don’t even pause to avoid saying socialism cares for people over corporations, in their blind striking out to smear anyone brave enough to take on the name.
We shouldn’t be surprised if Democrats generally defend the philosophy of democratic socialism from such demonizing.
This Tweet from one of Bernie’s guys offers to define democratic socialism rather as mother’s milk, apple pie and saluting the flag.
Is it correct? Does it persuade you?
http://twitter.com/IanMolony/status/690076734859919360
The poster says*:
Democratic Socialism
Of the People, By the People, For the People
A political ideology which balances a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership fo the means of production, free-market capitalism in the form of business receiving reasonable profits for goods and services while at the same time providing fair compensation to labor with a shared responsibility for civil societal needs such, but not limited to, emergency services, military, publicly-owned utilities and services, and infrastructure in the form of maintenance and management of public roadways, providing water and waste-water treatment, public parks and recreation, resource management and wildlife conservation, public ports, airports, rail lines and interstates, and in providing programs within a publicly elected representatives state and federal government.
Were I advising the Sanders campaign, I’d advise that the language in that statement be made much more reader friendly, and formatted to aid reading. But in the main, it doesn’t differ much from the Wikipedia definition. See if you can find any critical differences:
Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production. Although sometimes used synonymously with “socialism”, the adjective “democratic” is often added to distinguish itself from Leninist and Stalinist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic. In all, democratic socialists don’t support single-party system and centralism.[1]
Democratic socialism is usually distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and social democracy, where “social democracy” refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[2] The distinction with the former is made on the basis of the authoritarian form of government and centralized economic system that emerged in the Soviet Union during the 20th century,[3] while the distinction with the latter is made in that democratic socialism is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while social democracy is not.[4] That is, whereas social democrats seek only to “humanize” capitalism through state intervention, democratic socialists see capitalism as being inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality, and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership. Ultimately democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only cause more problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy, so that capitalism can never be sufficiently “humanized” and must ultimately be replaced by socialism.[5][6]
Democratic socialism is not specifically revolutionary or reformist, as many types of democratic socialism can fall into either category, with some forms overlapping with social democracy.[7] Some forms of democratic socialism accept social democratic reformism to gradually convert the capitalist economy to a socialist one using the pre-existing political democracy, while other forms are revolutionary in their political orientation and advocate for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist economy.[8]
Few people want to debate what “democratic socialism” really means, chiefly because socialism is such a loaded word and concept. There are two camps, one which wants people to rationally look at cooperative activities of the world’s great democratic republics and smile at their virtues, and continue them, the Bernie Sanders camp. The other camp holds strictly to the philosophy expressed in Friedrich von Hayek’s cartoon of socialism in The Road To Serfdom**, which indicts authoritarianism, and makes an unevidenced claim that any move towards socialism inherently leads to dictatorship.
We should give Sanders and his supporters credit for trying to open discussion. But we should be ready with first aid kits when they discover it’s not an open door to discussion with conservatives, but a tempered glass window posing as a door — and administer to their contusions as they smash into it.
If you find a tempered discussion of modern democratic socialism anywhere, will you let us know?
In comments, let us know what you think even if you don’t find the perfect, tempered discussion.
Matt Wuerker’s classic cartoon from the 2009 campaign for the Affordable Care Act, when Barack Obama was accused of socialism for proposing to increase health care coverage. Perhaps ironically, Obama’s plan ended up with powerful capitalist institutions entrenched in it. Critics of socialism sill haven’t noticed.
More:
- “Sanders seeks to reassure nervous voters about his ‘democratic socialist’ label,” Abby Phillip in The Washington Post, January 25, 2016
- This opinion piece by cartoonist Ted Rall, which I found in the Japan Times, defends Sen. Sanders as the rational candidate against the more center-focused campaign of Sec. Clinton, worth the read whether one agrees or not
_____________
* I list the text here to aid in indexing for search sites.
** Link is to the version at the Mises Institute, which is generally a biased source; in this case, their biases help to make sure the cartoon version presented is faithful to Hayek’s original; otherwise, discussion there on “democratic socialism” is probably fruitless.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Indeed, the distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy is correct. And, on health care, I think we need to be social democrats, not democratic socialists.
LikeLike
Thanks, Ed. And it looks like your pal Rove has started attacking Hillary already in hopes of promoting a Democratic nomination of the more beatable (in his opinion) Sanders.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-rove-financial-support-iowa-attack-ads/2016/01/24/id/710639/
Most polling does show Sanders beating any of the Repub candidates in a general election by wider margins than Hillary, but I wouldn’t put too much stock in those polls. Voters will move toward center after the primaries, giving Hillary the better shot (much to my dismay).
LikeLike
We can hope that’s a trend in the right direction, and that it continues. Waiting to see how my old school mate Karl Rove decides to slander the Democratic candidate, whoever it may be.
A quick sample from Facebook or Twitter, or the letters-to-the-editor in any daily newspaper, suggests a sizable portion of Americans still find “socialist” to be a demeaning, demonizing term when applied to anyone or any idea, good or bad.
I like your view better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For decades, the label of socialist (and its cousin: communist) has efficiently stigmatized individuals with aspirations of economic reform. To this day, hypersensitive conservatives continue to use the moniker as an ad-hominem counterattack whenever their economic philosophy is challenged.
Of course, a vehement defense of capitalism is to be expected from its most affluent beneficiaries, but the shortcomings of the American economic model [unveiled with the onset of The Great Recession] have made its other defenders appear like clueless puppets of the one percent. The heavy reliance on the “socialist” slur by these protectors of the status quo has now backfired and given rise to an unapologetic socialist presidential candidate. By the conservatives’ own haphazard rhetoric, a socialist somehow became anyone offering alternatives to pure capitalism–but alternatives in the midst of a prolonged recession were no longer taboo, and the people who were demonized by some as socialists saw their ideologies gain in popularity.
According to a Rasmussen poll of U.S. voters, even after the Republican Party officially decried the Affordable Care Act as socialist in 2009, approval ratings for the legislation hovered around 43%. This indicates that condemning policies and people as socialist lost the slandering power it once had. Twenty years ago 43% of Americans would not have publicly supported the National Football League, let alone a public policy, if prominent politicians defamed it as socialist (Side note: the NFL, with its revenue sharing program, actually is quite socialist).
Public opinion has changed, and it might just be because some tax-funded government programs and services—despite their bureaucratic flaws—are better serving the entire electorate than profit-driven private sector options. The military, public education, and law enforcement are just some examples of how the government can provide critical services to all Americans, no matter their income bracket. Other private enterprises on which Americans rely (particularly banks, for-profit colleges, and health insurance companies) have proven their destructive power when left to operate in the untamed free market. These industries have debased the capitalist platform and generated public outcry for a better (i.e. more mixed/balanced) economic system which does not bankrupt the country and its citizens.
Regardless of the reason for the relatively recent change in political climate, contemporary critics of capitalism are by no means pioneers.
Well before it was socially tolerable for an American to do so, the prolific author Jack London denounced capitalism and glorified socialism in a poignant essay titled “What Life Means to Me.” In the essay, London unabashedly recounts how he “discovered that [he] was a socialist” after unsuccessfully attempting to climb “the colossal edifice of society.” Before he came to embrace socialism, he found that his will to work was met only with an employer’s will to exploit his naïve ambition. The promised opportunity of capitalism never materialized for London, despite what he details as a grueling effort to play the capitalist game.
It is hard to imagine that the current economic recovery plan of capitalists will offer more than the empty promises that Jack London found in his quest to earn the American dream. Corporate giants are buying political influence and legislative favor at a level that was never before legal. This seems highly likely to result in the exploitation of the underprivileged and the further division of a nation.
Such is the current state of capitalism.
It is painfully ironic that a country claiming a foundation on the concepts of freedom and equality employs a system that produces such financial bondage and economic inequality. The law of the jungle has become the law of our land, and consequently we have been reduced from the only creatures on Earth capable of compassion to merciless animals in an economic food chain. The gradual acceptance of socialist components may be the only viable way for America to evolve beyond Darwinian economics and discover the “warm faith in the human, glowing idealism, sweetness of unselfishness, renunciation, and martyrdom” that an enlightened Jack London knew was possible more than 100 years ago.
Adapted and updated from: https://politicdiscourse.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/you-dont-know-jack-about-capitalism/
LikeLiked by 2 people
More cartoons: Fitzsimmons in Tucson’s Arizona Daily Star:
http://twitter.com/IanMolony/status/690072461623320576
LikeLike