I have an idea: Socialism is not destroying our country—fascism is. The so called socialists of today are not Marxists, but the fascists of today are capable of putting children in concentration camps.
Let’s not be so quick to call people socialists, okay? But let’s be brave and call out those fascists that openly flaunt their racism and bigotry. Indeed, every reference to President Trump should reference his fascism. He is a member of a fascist party.
2
Democrats need to stop pointing to western Europe. Europe copied FDR's New Deal policies. Americanize your policies. Just point to successes from New Deal era and return to it. Label yourself "An FDR democrat" It will force media to discuss and educate Americans on New Deal legacy and force FOX Noise to attack America's greatest President in 20th century. Yes, Social democracy is working well in Australia,Canada,Norway
,Sweden,Germany, France etc. And in America it worked well under FDR New Deal policies. That's why cons call FDR a socialist. Most historians rank FDR next to Lincoln and Washington. Dems just need to invoke FDR legacy and not try to convince 1/2 of red states that the word socialism is good . Messaging people. Get rid of term "socialist". No need to wear this misunderstood term.
Just invoke FDR legacy is all you need to do..... Americanize it
1
Indeed, purging the US of socialism is not easily done. Until recently many in the Republican party harbored socialist sympathies. Happily only a few RINOs, like John McCain, Marco Rubio and those three women in the Senate, remain. The so-called Democratic party is something else all together, it having been infested by communists in the 50's and 60's. It could very well take the remaining six years of Trump's rule to purge the country of the remaining vestiges of foreign communistic ideology and free the American people of its divisive and dangerous partisanship. Freedom!!!
There is nothing wrong with social justice, as shown by social democracies in the European Union, as they are on the way to resolve the gross inequalities between the halves and the not-halves, the rich and the poor, a more generous sharing of the economic pie, honoring solidarity among us, and recognizing that no chain is stronger than it's weakest link. Besides, it's the right thing to do, not because of compassion but justice. And without justice, there can be no peace in society. The U.S.' capitalistic system, deeply unequal, if unregulated, is akin to self-annihilation in the long run. Greed must be lassoed, and not allowed to roam free to harm people. To the republicans out there, please stop the stupidity of giving the name 'social' a bad name, it is irrational and a hateful wall...where a bridge of mutual understanding is of the essence. Let's stop demagoging the issue.
1
This article pretends that socialism is the coming thing. One thing I know is that Obama was very good at spending other people’s money and then lying about it—“if you like your doctor,” etc. Under him socialism had a chance, but it failed. So let’s stop pretending that it has a future. The one positive thing to come out of this that the Democrats are finally coming clean to the American people and are giving up the pretense that they care about the middle class. Let’s see how well they fare in November, 2018 with their great Socialist dream.
Most people who talk about socialism, including both the right-wingers who use it as a bogeyman and the Democratic Socialists pushing their agenda on the left, don't seem to actually know what Socialism is. At this point it is just a label that has transcended its actual meaning.
If so many Americans are "triggered" by the S-word (because they mistakenly associate it with totalitarian communism), what if we called it "Christian values" -- the real, humanitarian ones, not the heretical Prosperity Gospel and purely bigoted ones that fuel the bizarre alliance between so-called Evangelicals and Trump.
Nordic countries and Venezuela. The former adopted safety nets with clear limits ,mutual responsibilities with flexibility to adapt as problems arise. They could act as a United people...there was little demonization.
Venezuela demonized elements of society as enemies to be harrassed by mobs. Chavez promised 'free stuff' and imported poor folks giving them voting rights resulting in a permanent 47% of voters wanting for more free stuff...and permanent political power too.
US leftist Democrats demand eliminating ICE or "reimagining" it, quasi open borders. San Francisco allows illegals to vote as Chavez did early on.
Democrat leftist speak of emulating the Nordic example, but speak in the same demonizing language of Hugo Chavez and using similar methods to attain votes purposely creating societal division as a means to their utopian ends.
The results of equality in misery will be the same.
If you benefit from a public police force and fire department, you are a socialist. We all will need health care, just as we all will need fire and police protection. We need socialized medicine. Medicare for all, please.
Forget about teaching what democratic socialism is all about and that is simply a policy component of every other liberal democracy. It is time to teach Americans that 50 years of neoliberalism and 18th and 19th century economics has robbed them of their power and influence and has robbed them of most of their rights as citizens.
It is time to concede that low taxes and small government has indeed grown America's economy but it has not raised all boats. The truth is that many boats have been swamped and are now sinking. The economic system of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century has done exactly what it did the first time. Some do really well but for most Americans the quality of life is deteriorating. It is time to confront the gaslighting directly, it is not the liberals who are taking anything away. America's government is no longer the government of the people , it is owned by the people Jefferson warned you about.
Canadian philosopher and writer John Ralston Saul says the USA is the most European nation on the planet and he wasn't talking about 2018 but 1776. The American right has robbed you of your birthright they have betrayed your nation and have overturned your revolution.
In 1773 it was the East India Company who wrote the tax laws and it was East India Company untaxed tea that was aboard East India Company ships in Boston Harbour that were thrown overboard. La plus ca change.
The problem is that for those on the hard right (aka, the GOP these days), anything to the left of them is "socialism" -- and, that ultimately translates for them as anything they don't like.
So, many hundreds of billions of dollars gorging an already-stuffed Pentagon? For the so-called antisocialist GOP, that doesn't count as socialism. Whereas Medicare for all Americans? Totally socialism (ergo, "bad" from the GOP POV).
For the GOP, "socialism" always will be a political epithet, when it suits them. But like with so much in the GOP, they argue in bad faith.
Meanwhile, mainstream Democrats sputter and hem and haw, and allow the bad faith Republicans to frame the discussion.
There's plenty of socialism in American society -- it's just a question of what the politicians choose to notice and complain about. Socialism that helps GOP institutions? The GOP loves it. Anything else, they hate.
When is the golden age implied by the second A in MAGA supposed to have occurred?
I’m guessing if you could get a straight answer it would likely fall smack dab in the middle of the 20th century and The New Deal. You know, that terribly repressive period of government overreach that Republicans have been trying to save us from for years.
We are blindly, toxically anxious these days because our lives—while full of content and sophisticated distraction—are increasingly devoid of real meaning, dignity and security.
Most amazingly of all is that today if you suggest anything reminiscent of FDR’s legacy, you’re called a Socialist, a dangerous threat and un-American.
The irony would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Read The Nordic Theory of Everything and understand how silly we are here not to learn from other's gains. A whole new way to think about freedom. We are losing it. Scandinavians are gaining it.
1
It’s a pity that the meaning of the term “public,” under the onslaught of the right-wing as well as capitalists generally (not all of whom are even conservative, let alonr right-wing) has become so degraded. That some societal problems call for public (meaning cooperative, coordinated, national) solutions is easy enough to understand. But the knee-jerk conflation of “public” with “higher taxes” and other sins blinds the general public (all of us) to the value of societal solutions to societal problems.
Blindness is itself is one of those problems, in the sickening age of Trump. For example, why can’t the American public deal with the problem of Fox and its deliberate ideological mendacity? Its very license is a public privilege, granted by the public, yet it is apparently impossible to revoke its FCC license.
Why is that?
How about 'Social Neo-capitalism'?
I consider myself a social capitalist. I acknowledge the benefits of capitalism in terms of motivation and rewards, yet the inherently predatory and greedy nature of capitalism must be tempered by law with support for the weak, the ill, the poor, and the marginalized.
This subject really for me identifies that there are extremes at both ends of the political spectrum and that they both use a form of bait and switch to attract people to their preferred policies. Truly liberal voices are being silenced or ignored on both sides of the political spectrum. It saddens me to see the apparent death of classical liberalism in our nation in favor of destructive populism.
You have to like Bernie Sanders platform. If he were President instead of Hillary, everything thing would be free, you can't beat that. Where he mis fires is he wouldn't open the flood gates on illegal immigrants.
"People in 2018 remain unsure what “socialism” really means....... Is it an idea? A set of policies? A political identity?"
Americans will never be able to define "socialism" until they first define capitalism.
"Is capitalism all about winning at all costs? Does it necessitate destroying the environment, removing children from the parents at the border, ridiculing the disabled and women, fostering corruption, paying off porn stars, not paying off vendors, committing repeated wage theft, and cheating on your taxes."
The love of money, not capitalism, is the root of all evil.
As a Democrat I see no need to include socialist as a descriptor. The electorate is already fairly ignorant (see 2016 election ) Better to just say what you are for than get mired down in a conversation about labels that will get nowhere.
Socialism is a loaded word that means very different things to different people. Man is a social animal and has always worked together in groups for the good of the group. Governments that have actively helped their populations have prospered and grown strong where others have collapsed.
From my perspective outside US borders, the term “socialism” like “liberal” is so overused and misused that it has lost any meaning in the American political and cultural context.
The USA is a country that vacillates between two interpretations of corporate capitalism.
One is ruthlessly greedy, punitive, and heartless. The other acknowledges the existence of a social contract and, often grudgingly and clumsily, makes minimal efforts to fulfill it, usually struggling against a torrent of opposition from well-funded critics.
I think the author got it right when he intimated that many in our electorate don't know what socialism is. The unfortunate thing is that in a capitalist dominated world, the partial antithesis to capitalism will have almost nothing but misinformation propagated about it. The New Deal is, to me, the best indication of what socialism represents, then, an attempt to introduce some egalitarianism into a system that had failed for most of the American populace.
1
Socialism in Canada is one of the threads running through our society. Socialist programs, universal health care is one example, have been adopted by both the Center Right and Center left parties to the benefit of both and Canada as a whole . The socialist CCF party and its successor NDP had its roots in both Methodist theology and British trade union activity with some spillover from IWW action south of our border. Socialist initiatives have fitted nicely with the collective sentiments of your northern neighbour.
Socialist conjures up visions of communism in the US but in Canada we think of it more in terms of social safety nets like free health care, childcare and old age security. We pay higher taxes and expect the safety nets to be there when we need them.
The US has what could be deemed "socialist" programs like mortgage interest deduction (which we would love to have), but just doesn't call it what it is. Social safety nets are simply a tool to create a better society.
6
Simple programs that are seen as fair do work in the US.
Take Social Security. Everyone expect to be young and hard-working for a while. and then get old and retire. So everyone agrees to pay in while they are young, in order to get benefits in old age. No one is left out, so this is seen as fair.
Tax-the-rich-and-help-the-poor type programs are far more contentious. Who gets to define 'rich' and 'poor'? How do you avoid perverse incentives not to work? Which states will be taxed, and which states will reap the benefits? Everyone suspects that each political party will try to set up the system to benefit their own supporters, and punish the opposing party - and they are not wrong.
4
My early years: great parks, good schools, local MLB team wins the Series (sorry, Yankees), prosperity, government-business as partners, top-grade infrastructure -- and the Mayor was an actual Socialist, as some of his predecessors were, too. Where: Milwaukee, nearly 60 years ago. You can't convince me that socialism, working in coordination with business for civic objectives, is a bad thing.
16
For many Americans the mere sound or sight of the word Socialism is enough to put an end to the conversation. The concept of a government with unchecked powers has been tested and, deservedly, rejected.
But there were governments with unchecked powers long before socialism was ever conceived, and there is nothing inherent in the concept of socialism that says a socialist government can't be subject to the same checks and balances as any other.
Meanwhile, no longer constrained by any need to compete for the world's hearts and minds with a competing socialist model, it is Capitalism that is throwing aside as many checks to its powers as it can and constructing what amounts to a global tyranny ruled by market forces.
The capitalists are right that a stalinist state would be bad. But for most of us neofeudalism looks almost equally threatening.
There's a 3rd way, though, and it's working very well in Scandinavia. THAT is what we should be trying to build.
14
@Green Tea I saw a video recently that interested me. It was a man from Sweden who stated that he hopes we never implement single payer healthcare in America. His logic was that they benefit from their system because America bears the burden for creating the medicines and practices that allow for their medical systems to thrive. It’s true. A disproportionate number of new medications and medical technologies are developed in US labs. The world benefits because the ability here to profit on innovation. Innovations are expensive and time consuming. Of course we all want services and medications to be cheaper. What we don’t want is a system that fails to bring new medications and innovations that save lives and make the human condition more bearable.
1
@John - and why must innovation always depend on and focus mainly on profit (in capitalism that seems to equate with obscene profits). can't people do good anymore and be fairly and well compensated for what they do instead of the few living repulsively wealthy lives? what is the matter with us? our values are way distorted.
1
@Zoli Companies make profits because they serve a need or want that society desires to have met. Everyone benefits from that exchange. The buyer gets the benefit of a product they need while the ones selling the products get to earn money and employ people who also earn money. That money is then used to meet their needs. The fact that some are rich is not a bad thing so long as everyone is generally better off. American poor are rich by global standards. They are in the top 1% of the world’s population.
I read no discussion of the central role of an organized labor movement in this article. All European social democracies are associated with labor-based political parties and robust labor movements. In the US, organized labor now represents a puny 8% of the private workforce, and even the liberal wing of the Democratic party remains at best ambivalent towards organized labor.
8
Writing for myself (but I suspect I'm typical of many) this op-ed seems like a lot of agonizing about how to name the box in which the writer and others like the GOP candidate mentioned at the start are trying (unsuccessfully) to stuff me.
I believe many Americans across the political spectrum have nuanced views on various policies that result in a continuum of opinions, rather than hard "Left" or "Right" attitudes. This kind of nuance rarely gets presented in the media or by our politicians because it doesn't serve their purposes, which is to create a conflict and use the resulting emotionalism as a means to influence people.
The best moment in this piece is the following, in which the writer finally makes her point that the people being called "Socialists" (a word that is used by many specifically to create anxiety and fear) are actually DEMOCRATS.
"Many of the policies being advocated by so-called socialists — labor rights, affordable public education, a vibrant welfare state — were once vital to that party’s identity, especially during the New Deal. "
I wish, instead of op-ed pieces like these, we'd some some good ones on why "so-called democrats" have been found to be supporting capital over labor, privatization, the banking industry and the prison industry and how they no longer fit the box label of "Democrat".
5
Medicare for all will come to our country. The current system is not working.
With that being said when a politician states that taxes will not go up under such a plan they are lying. Those Western industrialized countries that have it have a higher national tax rate and I support that.
If Senator Sanders as per his website has plans and proof that Medicare for all can happen without those tax increases then submit his plan to the CBO for analysis.
He has had years. What are you waiting for?
People are hurting.
4
@K Hunt - "when a politician states that taxes will not go up under such a plan they are lying. "
Just to be crystal clear, Bernie Sanders does not claim that taxes will not go up. I refer you to the "Issues" page of his website, "How Bernie pays for his proposals". With regard to healthcare he points out first, how real healthcare costs would decline, and then goes on to state how its resulting costs would be covered.
"Paid for by a 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers, a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work, limiting tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax, and savings from health tax expenditures."
Sanders and so many other sensible, similar minded politicians and their supporters are not advocating that everything should, highly unrealistically, "be free". This is a lie being propagated by the GOP and others such as Hillary Clinton in the quote below.
"And on the other side, there’s a just a deep desire to believe that, you know, we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we’ve done hasn’t gone far enough and we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don’t know what that means, but it’s something that they deeply feel."
Sanders' website:
https://live-berniesanders-com.pantheonsite.io/issues/medicare-for-all/
I am dismayed to see Democratic Party leaders so out of touch with reality that some are hailing a young socialist like Ms. Oasio-Cortez as the future of our party. She and other socialists will not likely achieve other than sporadic electoral successes, and may cost us wins in the mid-terms and 2020.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and other socialists are members of, and are supported by, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which explicitly states that it believes in turning the means of production over to the workers, one of many DSA policies likely to alienate many voters. (https://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand#global )
How quickly some people seem to have forgotten the candidacy of avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, who divided Democrats and helped lead to the defeat of Hillary Clinton.
Abolishing ICE and turning the means of production over to workers are suicidal platform planks for the Democratic Party.
I sincerely hope the Democratic Party leadership, such as it is, will turn its attention from bashing Trump to formulating policies and a platform that will unite Democrats and appeal to undecided and moderate voters in the midterm and 2020 elections.
11
@Mon Ray Though we seem to disagree on a few things - I do hope that that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez represents the future of the party for example - I absolutely agree that the party leadership would stop focusing on Trump and actually put together a platform.
I felt that Clinton's platform in 2016 was lacking and relied on just being 'Not Trump' - and we saw how that worked. The party can do so much better than "At Least We're Not Him"
2
@Mon Ray - Thanks for the link. I read it. Nowhere in it do I see the DSA advocating "turning the means of production over to workers" or other Communist (not Socialist) ideas. They do, however, write about trying to redress the imbalance of power between global capitalist entities that have secured so much power that they dominate nation states and the democratic political process.
"The operation of a democratic socialist economy is the subject of continuing debate within DSA. First it must mirror democratic socialism's commitment to institutional and social pluralism. Democratic, representative control over fiscal, monetary, and trade policy would enable citizens to have a voice in setting the basic framework of economic policy--what social investment is needed, who should own or control basic industries, and how they might be governed."
4
“what appears to be a surge from the left also feels like evidence of how far right the party has shifted in recent decades, leaving its labor-left constituents stranded on the fringe.”
This vocabulary is simply a misframing of the entire issue. There are two problems left unaddressed, and neither fits a left vs right terminology.
One is the paralysis of Congress under GOP leadership subservient to a handful of billionaire ideologues out to install themselves as Oligarchs.
The second is the growing number of unaddressed problems of a general nature that affect us all, but don’t interest the private sector. They require government action, but government under the “less regulation, lower taxes, fewer benefits” mantra of the private sector can do nothing.
Common sense actions for the general good are not “right” or “left” issues. They just happen not to fit the venal lackeys of the GOP Congress.
15
@John Brews ..✅✅
There was a concerted policy shift by the Democratic party to the right after the defeat of George McGovern. It culminated with Clinton "ending welfare as we know it", selling out working people with the enactment of Nafta, and eroding our civil liberties by helping establish the FISA courts. Thankfully, there is a large recognition of this now and the response is new interest in Socialist reforms.
At a time of growing income inequality and declining social mobility, interest is rising in policies that relieve the inequities of our everyday lives, that provide a sense of economic security and stability, and gives us hope for a better future. Labeling policies 'bad or Socialist' that preserve American ideals that we are all created equal and that everyone is entitled to pursue a life of liberty and happiness is just wrong. Capitalism doesn't have to be a 'zero-sum game'... but it requires regulation, workers rights, a living wage, equal rights, social mobility, and most of all fairness and compassion.
9
@Steve Burton I agree, and I think that rather than trying to brand a movement with a word that for most Americans invokes Stalin and Mao, they should call it "Social Capitalism". That reassures the skeptic as well as the commiephobe that the profit motive and free enterprise are not at risk, while providing a focus on quality of life and broad distribution of society's benefits.
6
The government owns and manages all or much of healthcare, education, defense, transportation, and other major sectors of the economy. And the government regulates many other sectors of the economy, such as agriculture. We live in a mixed economy, neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism, and that's not going to change.
I used to live in an agricultural area, and one of my colleagues was a farmer's wife. She said that for 364 days each year, her husband and his farmer friends would talk about how much they hated the government. The exception was the day when they received their big checks from the Department of Agriculture and headed down to the dealership to buy their new trucks. Apparently they were happy socialists for one day each year.
22
Of all the people in the world, farmers are the last we should suggest are socialists in any sense. Spend one day working with a farmer and you will learn what work truly is: a beautiful thing that most of us will never experience. They deserve our thanks; not our criticism.
"DSA states that it believes in public ownership of the means of production." What does this Marxist term even mean in an age when factories have only a handful of human workers monitoring hundreds of robots? Or when corporations move jobs around the world looking for the lowest labor costs?
5
Karl Marx is grossly misunderstood in America which can’t get past communism. The idea that “the worker must have roses too” was the central pillar of Marx’s philosophy. He was less concerned about labor, and more about leisure (escape from the tyranny of the economic) in each person’s life. He wrote about “the free self-development of each” where an ideal day is divided into work, leisure and creativity to address humanity’s “spiritual” side.
Here’s the “socialism” part. Unlike America’s conservative notion of democracy that focuses exclusively on the individual, for Marx the “self-development of each” was inextricably intertwined with the self-development of all - the idea that social well-being and equality can’t be achieved with vast differences in individual contentment.
Literary critic Terry Eagleton puts it this way: ”It is not just a question of each doing his or her own thing in grand isolation from others. That would not even be possible. The other must become the ground of one's own self-realization, at the same time as he or she provides the condition for one's own. At the interpersonal level, this is known as love. At the political level, it is known as socialism.”
The American notion of self-reliance and rugged individualism are antithetical to an efficiently and effectively functioning society. It reduces us to a nation of competing individuals, rather than a true society. Perhaps Donald Trump has inadvertently shocked us into recognizing this.
29
@Michael The true spirit of individualism and capitalism is that we all have different talents, needs, and ability to benefit society. Companies bring products to market that benefit our lives. Corporations do this in ever more efficient ways that allow products to be more available and affordable to the masses. What America has done more than any other country in human history, contrary to popular belief, is to minimize human suffering and to spread that philosophy to the world. Of course we have not been a perfect society and none are, however, there has never been a time in world history when so few are extremely impoverished. Prior to the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, personal property rights, and capitalism, 95% of the world lived in extreme poverty. Unlike what we are taught as children, profit motive and the ability to take care of ones self and ones family has brought about far more good and progress than altruism ever has or ever will.
1
@Michael Yes. Feels like US is reverting to Hobbes' State of Nature.
There are many reasons why socialism failed to take hold in America, and specifically why the American Socialist Party failed to gain a foothold even during the Great Depression. In my opinion, a major reason was the failure of radicals to unite.
I hope today’s radicals don’t make that mistake again. We might take some advice from a successful representative of the working class, Samuel Gompers, who was a pretty conservative president of the American Federation of Labor. When asked what labor wanted, he didn’t say progressivism or reform or socialism or communism or anarchism; he just said “More.” He meant more money, more vacation time, more sick days, more benefits.
Democratic Socialists should consider amending Gompers formula. When asked what Democratic Socialists want, let’s just answer simply “More Socialism.” We all want more health insurance, more jobs (including more government jobs), higher minimum wages, free college tuition, more unemployment benefits, and a better safety net. Some of us also want public ownership of banks and oil companies. Some of us want even more public ownership. But most of us want “More Socialism.”
10
For an enlightened examination of socialism’s historic role in American politics see “The “S” Word” by The Nation columnist, John Nichols. Nichols shows that for a period of American history states like Wisconsin that voted for Trump were heavily socialist in their politics, and were examples of how “government could operate honorably and as an extension of the people, rather than as a burden to them.”
By definition, power resides with the people in a democracy. (Not to be confused with Trump-style populism where disillusioned people claim to have power but are nothing more than puppets of moneyed interests.) Socialism is really nothing but democracy in action, as opposed to the democracy-in-name-only that we now have, and always have had. When the all-inclusive phrase “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, it was edited to “life liberty or property” in the Constitution, thus indicating the direction the Founding Fathers intended our “democracy” to go: toward white, propertied, males.
Socialism asks the essential question: how can people truly have equal rights with stark differences in wealth? When the CEO of Amazon makes the median annual salary of his average employee every 9 sec., this is not democracy.
Marx was a profoundly moral thinker and humanitarian whose ideas were bastardized by the tyranny of Lenin. Marx believed that the world could feasibly be made a better place. So did another socialist - Jesus.
15
Flag waving, phony patriotism broke up the international solidarity of the early 19th century socialist movement culminating in President Wilson's imprisonment of Eugene Debs for the duration of the War to End All Wars. The post war Palmer Raids on US citizens and the "Red Scare" followed. Thereafter, the politicians would confuse and conflate" Big C" Communism with "small s" socialism. Given what Wilson, the moralist idealist, perpetrated via the Espionage Act, we should all agree that the biggest threat to our democracy would be to give our current President a War. He'd really like one he might tweet. Hence the "big beautiful" military parade in November. And Putin may well be in the reviewing stand!
5
the headline would've been more accurate had it said something about americans not knowing what socialism is.
17
The discussion is moot. Once our fossil-fuel based global economy has run its course, in an incomprehensible endgame of environmental collapse and mass extinction, what remains will essentially be advanced hunter-gatherer societies.
9
@jlafitte
Not moot at all. A political agenda which focuses on the well-being of all must obviously take into account preservation and care of the environment. An agenda which focuses on the concentration of wealth for the few throws concern for the environment out the window. Isn't that what we are seeing now?
2
Labels are vague. Socialism can mean many things. In India, where I was born and grew up, it meant government ownership of the financial system, heavy industry, transportation, and a wide variety of sectors acquired seemingly without any plan (luxury hotels, for example). It meant heavy control and regulation of all economic activity, with licensing and output restrictions on the few privately owned businesses. It meant waiting 11 YEARS to buy a scooter at an inflated price (because it was a “luxury” item) and 7-30 years for a phone connection. It meant widespread corruption and endemic and hideous poverty (the kind that leads to distended bellies and straw-colored hair in dark-skinned children because of malnutrition). Everyone who supports socialism here in the US has an obligation - to themselves and to every American - to define EXACTLY what they mean by the term. As another commenter listed below, the DSA states that it believes in public ownership of the means of production. Which is very similar to the Indian definition.
8
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a Democratic Socialist. She belongs to and is supported by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), whose goals are unlikely to appeal to most Democrats, much less Republicans. Here are two of many DSA goals that will turn off many voters: (https://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand#global )
1. "Economic democracy means...direct ownership and/or control of much of the economic resources of society by the great majority of wage and income earners." This is basic Marxism/Communism, wherein workers own or control the means of production; it hasn't worked elsewhere and won't appeal to US voters.
2. "Social redistribution--the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society--will require...massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation...." This goal is neither feasible nor appealing.
I am sad to see Democratic Party leaders so out of touch with reality that some (including the DNC chair!) are hailing a young socialist like Ms. O-C as the future of our party. O-C and other socialists will not likely achieve other than sporadic electoral successes, and may cost us wins in the mid-terms and 2020. Abolishing ICE and turning the means of production over to workers are suicidal platform planks for the Democratic Party.
11
Nobody has talked about turning the means of production over to the workers. We are talking about fair wages, Medicare for All, free college education. In other words, benefits that citizens of every other first world nation have enjoyed for decades.
21
In the absence of focused and organized Social-Democratic resistance, the Trump administration is effectively demoralizing the American public.
Trump himself--with all his manipulative lies, misrepresentations, distractions, sweet heart deals, links with Russia, dependency upon loans from shady foreign banks, nepotism and enrichment of himself, his family, his billionaire appointees and his plutocratic friends--is the chief author of this demoralization.
A demoralized and cynical people will acquiesce as our socio-economic-political system moves beyond plutocracy to kleptocracy.
If the Vladimir Putin by his electoral interference and Russian connections with Trump had hoped to weaken America's international reputation and leadership, he has clearly already succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
6
If Socialism is to rise in the US, more citizens will have to understand the aberrant character of American capitalism.
A SHORT COURSE ON THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENTS GUIDING ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES:
(1) Competition guarantees equilibrium and fair outcomes among all market factors, including prices, wages, rents, job availability, etc.
(2) Nonetheless, private monopolies--too-big-to-fail enterprises--are preferable to government regulation of the market.
[Note the tension between (1) and (2); (1) identifies competition as essential to fair outcomes, but (2) assures the monopolistic undermining of competition. GOP pols generally ignore this tension.]
(3) Competition generally demands that corporations must pursue short-term profits, minimize the interests of employees and consumers, and thereby enhance shareholder value and executive compensation.
(4) If it is politically expedient to put a public-private initiative in place--say for healthcare reform or infrastructure repair--make sure the initiative is complex, and assures the socialization of risks and the privatization of benefits.
(5) Always exaggerate the dangers associated with public debt and minimize the dangers associated with ballooning private sector debt.
(6) Privatization, financial and environmental deregulation and massive tax reductions for the "makers" will assure trickle-down benefits for the "takers.”
Surprise! Surprise! GOP donors' interests are served above those of all others!
18
That word was Censored in most press. All across America small town newspapers are either refusing to cover it, or disparaging the 'Left." During our stolen Election, Google ran well placed Ads disguised as fact based news, misleading people about Socialism.
3
It would be helpful to sorting it out to understand the difference between a "social democrat" and a "socialist."
To put it in simple terms, Socialists believe in public ownership of all means of production (i.e., industry) and productive property, Social Democrats believe in a mixed economy where business remains private, but the state provides a strong social safety net and can provide services (public housing, health care, education) where the free market has failed to do so. To put it in simple terms, most Western European economies are to a greater of lesser degree social democrat, before the fall of the Warsaw Pact, most eastern European economies tried to be socialist (or at least claimed they were trying.) Social democrats in Europe were bitterly opposed to communism (which was essentially a form of socialism) and were regarded as traitors by hard-line Marxists.
The "Democratic Socialists of America" title is a pose, selecting a name actually in Europe associated with former Warsaw Pact Communist Parties - rather than an accurate portrayal of what that group stands for - read their policies and realise that they are social democrats, not in fact socialists.
13
In the United States you have a man with the sharpest brain, infinitely knowledgeable, deeply rational: Noam Chomsky (a Voltaire of our times, and perhaps even more important). Look him up, listen to him, read his books. He explains it all.
Chomsky is very rarely allowed to appear in mainstream media. The reason why is really self evident, but he explains that too. And he is by no means alone. He has thousands and thousands of followers.
US has overall a very vibrant dissident culture. With today's Internet it's easily available at that. There are people of all trades speaking truths not appreciated in the well-combed establishment. You'll find former ministers, generals, CIA-officers, ambassadors, NSA experts, professors, and even journalists who have decisive views on fundamental problems in today's society.
One thing they presently don't have is power. In a democracy power should be with the people. Thus it rests on us all to inform ourselves and use that power. Socialism is not only about taking care of each other, in a near future it's about the survival of the human species.
12
This article, like most, doesn’t confront the issue that “Socialism” today to many doesn’t mean the collective ownership of the means of production. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s policies, to the best of my ability, don’t mention this true ultimate socialist goal. The conflating of democratic socialism and social democracy was, at least in my opinion, incorrect. Social democracy is a capitalist system at its core, democratic socialism is socialist. The support for the policies of the former but not the latter was alluded to, but not directly addressed either in this article. Both polls and personal experience show that many millennials support “Socialism” in name only but not Socialism’s specifics.
2
@Daniel Grass
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a member of, and is supported by, the Democratic Socialists of America, which explicitly states that it believes in turning the means of production over to the workers.
Take a look at the DSA website if you don't believe me: (https://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand#global )
Is it time to consider political alternatives or time to send in the Praetorian Guard?
Political leaders do crazy things when they seriously fear losing something they highly value. Trump’s paranoia is increasing: If Putin or Mueller pounce, he will lose lots of money, power and (perceived) prestige. Those are his main interests.
The cornered Emperors Nero, Caligula and Commodus were all—like Trump—narcissistic, paranoid and delusional. The Roman Empire and Republic were long ago consigned to the dustbin of history.
Will Trump soon be consuming Big Macs while D.C. burns?
But, of course, America is exceptional: The American Republic and the imperial hegemony of American corporations (backed by US military might) could never be eclipsed by internal disorder, by fruitless military adventures and by the rise of barbarian counter forces. We are certain of that, right guys?
Guys? Guys . . .?
3
In the old days when the Soviet Union existed, there was a joke about an African strong man and his two sons. One was studying in Moscow and the other was studying in America.
The strong man explained that he sent one son to Moscow because that son was a buddying communist and he knew for certain that he would reject communism in a few years.
He then said that the son in America would actually learn how socialism - that is equal opportunities for all - works in practice.
I dare say that without realizing, we Americans live in a socialist Utopia where there is no first among equals - unless you rise on your own abilities.
Our social security, Medicaid etc. Programs are the types that most avowed socialists dream if.
I lived in Russia and go there often including recent World Cup. And even on this visit, some commented about social security safety net and lack of adequate pensions in Russia - especially because Russian economy is faltering due to sanctions.
So, call what you may - in my opinion, "socialism" thrives in America.
8
Any government that prides itself on limiting personal wealth is going to be unpopular with Americans.
2
Yes because America is a country founded on the principles of greed and exploitation.
Why no Socialism in the US?
This is a truly bizarre article in that it excludes the obvious answer, namely, the decades long suppression by the American capitalist government of Socialist ideas & organizations.
The Wobblies were destroyed by government raids and indictments following World War One. Their leader Big Bill Haywood fled the country for Socialist Russia. Many others received long sentences & the I.W.W. never recovered.
Contrary to Ms. Gage's version, the Russian revolution did not make Socialism unpopular in the USA. In fact, in the 1930s, many thousands of US workers and intellectuals joined the revolutionary Communist Party and millions supported them. In World War Two, we and the Socialist USSR were allies.
The once widespread knowledge of Marxism in America was wiped out most efficiently during Cold War One. Hundreds of CPUSA leaders were sent to prison, thousands of Red workers were fired. Teaching Marxist Leninism was banned de jure in this country by the Smith Act from 1948 to 1957 and de facto ever since. Despite the New Deal Democrat Senator Sanders calling himself a "Socialist," no mainstream American media outlet would dare hire an openly Marxist reporter or commentator. Socialist ideas are not permitted.
The final irony is that the New York TIMES itself fired several of its workers for invoking their Fifth Amendment right not to testify before an anti-Communist Senate Committee.
17
Why no Socialism in the USA? The answer from history is crystal clear.
The Industrial Workers of the World, the Communist Party USA, the Black Panthers, the Occupy Movement--all were infiltrated, repressed and destroyed by extreme police violence at the hands of the capitalist American state.
Violent repression by the government is the reason for no Socialism in the US and to ignore these facts is--What is the polite word?--disingenuous.
31
I have ownership positions in both means of production and means of distribution. I buy my shares of ownership at a welcoming and open market. I get a return on my investment. I am a capitalist. As, are you.
But I understand that sharing the burden of some services makes sense ethically and financially.
I talk to fellow US Citizens about socialism. I talk to Trump supporters who tell me Obamacare is bad, but they would support a single payor system. I talk to older republicans who await their next social security check. I talk to drivers who complain about potholes.
Americans need an education away from political rhetoric. We need to avoid labels like socialism or capitalism, and just talk about issues. How do we make sure all legal residents have healthcare? How do we fix the roads and bridges? How do we support the seniors and the disabled? How do we ensure investors can still invest and marketers can market? These are the issues.
Ideologies will never be understood in the US, and they are unimportant.
33
The existential threat to humanity is the increase in global temperature. Capitalism is incapable of addressing it, both because of its focus on short term profits and the free rider phenomenon in which companies don't have to take action because problems will be handled by someone else.
It should be obvious to anyone that a large scale, complex issue like global warming must be addressed by humanity through concerted action motivated by a common purpose.
Those on the right who revere capitalism and seek to preserve their privilege by conflating economic deregulation with individual liberty are doing the planet a grave disservice. We'll be lucky if the next generation recognizes its limitations and embraces socialism and the cooperation it implies to save us from ourselves.
20
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a Democratic Socialist. She belongs to and is supported by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), whose goals are unlikely to appeal to most Democrats, much less Republicans. Here are two of many DSA goals that will turn off many voters: (https://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand#global )
1. "Economic democracy means...direct ownership and/or control of much of the economic resources of society by the great majority of wage and income earners." This is basic Marxism/Communism, wherein workers own or control the means of production; it hasn't worked elsewhere and won't appeal to US voters.
2. "Social redistribution--the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society--will require...massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation...." This goal is neither feasible nor appealing.
I am sad to see Democratic Party leaders so out of touch with reality that some are hailing a young socialist like Ms. O-C as the future of our party. O-C and other socialists will not likely achieve other than sporadic electoral successes, and may cost us wins in the mid-terms and 2020. Abolishing ICE and turning the means of production over to workers are suicidal platform planks for the Democratic Party.
3
@Mon Ray: And "When government uses taxpayer funding and resources to give special advantages to private companies, it distorts the free market and erodes public trust in our political system." comes right from the Republican Party platform.
I think that shows how much manifestos are worth.
4
I knew that with Trump as President and Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House we would be regressively propelled back to the laissez faire glories of the kleptocratic Gilded Age.
I expected the worst, but a far worse worst than I had expected has already descended upon us. The internal divisions within the country have become extreme: our nation is now a house divided against itself.
The Marxist and Neo-Marxist critique of capitalism is increasingly relevant to the nation's current social, economic and political situation.
This critique must find an effective voice.
18
The best explanation of a perennially ambiguous term, one more usually seen through one's political perspective. Tells you that without at least some basic attention to "What I mean by that," the label is mostly worthless for constructive purposes, as opposed to making a political or debating point. Recognizing what a mess we're in, politically, socially, and environmentally, I wonder how a young, caring person considering a career in politics would do if they consciously sought to find and extract the best parts from: (a) each conventional political/ideological wing, not including the extremes; (b) the non-bland and bi-partisan parts of the center; plus, (c) ideas from the one usually missed: those not yet known in the mainstream. Ideally, if they could combine that with some political skill as a communicator (if they have charisma, too, it never hurts); a willingness to challenge us; admit when they don't know or get it wrong; shown real courage in their past, and not just in the military sense; have a nice story; refuse to play vicious politics even when receiving a shot; is a lifetime learner and systems thinker; is a nice person, even when no one is looking; sees past labels of all kinds--we may have someone who can help us get out of these pits. Next generation: you getting this? Here are some skill sets and qualities for those of you who deeply care and suspect you're here for a reason to think about assembling. Some of the rest of us may try to help from our ends.
It's rising -- that is, more and more people are aware that what has been demonized is really a part of the fabric of our society and has been since the first public roads and schools. Whether we will continue to socialize the losses of private corporations while privatizing the basic survival of most Americans into a desperate race to the bottom is still to be seen. Bernie + a younger VP 2020.
24
We socialists (especially Bernie, AOC, etc.) generally care very little about the label or ideology or ism. Our policies like Medicare for All and Green New Deal are overwhelmingly popular, and an opposition to them in defense of free market capitalism is rapidly being swept into the dustbin of history.
We have won the battle of ideas in the Democratic Party, are about to enact them into history, and it's not very important to us whether and when pundits start recognizing we have entered the era of American Democratic Socialism.
34
@Michael ... Look at the comment from Kaarl. In Scandinavia they have a good form of socialism working. They provide good education and support for those in need. Taxes are higher but more equitable. USA will not have won the battle until it treats it's citizens in a comparable manner.
11
I’m impressed by your optimism, but I’m concerned about the sizable percentage of people who disagree.
Because they *violently* disagree.
With the levels of irrational fear, blame and denigration these days, I think it’s possible we’d have seen rioting if Bernie had been elected.
Trumpism reflects and fuels these fires. There’s a self-destructive aspect here, and I honestly think a lot of people would rather see the world burn than hand it over to the Commies.
The center-right neo-liberal economic policies of the Democratic establishment have ill-served the interests of lower-middle class and poorer Americans. It will require a great deal of voter education, but the sole hope for the majority of voters is a Social-Democratic future. There is much we can learn concerning the social safety net, the legitimate expectations of workers, healthcare, education, taxation, etc., from enlightened social-democratic states.
Progressive politicians need to become effective educators. Years of anti-"socialist" propaganda must be countered. Voters must be made more and more aware of the many ways in which government serves their interests and taxpayers must become more willing to pay for the benefits they receive. The alternative is increased cynicism and demoralization. Here in the U.S.--as in Putin's Russia--cynicism and demoralization serve the interests of plutocratic oligarchs and kleptocrats
The election of President Trump--and responses to Trump-GOP misrule--clearly indicate the situation is desperate. The majority of Americans now demand an alternative to the right-of-center Democrats and the ultra-right-of-center, verging-on-alt-right, Republicans.
More politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, must recognize that they are called to serve the public welfare and not to advance chiefly the interests of themselves and their donors.
23
The Democrats, if they are again to achieve majoritarian status, must return to the social-democratic ideals and programs of FDR's New Deal.
The flaws of current capitalism were evident in the financial collapse of 2008. Progressives failed to build on this opportunity. During the Obama years, Democrats attached virtually no strings to the Wall Street bailout, did little to restrain or punish Wall Street banksters and continued to pursue their neo-liberal Clintonian course.
Mergers and acquisitions continue; competition further diminishes; too-big-too-fail institutions are bigger than ever; a narrow focus on the enhancement of shareholder value remains detrimental to the interests of employees and consumers; robots and other innovations reduce the demand for workers; entrenched wealth dominates the political and legal systems; disparities between the wealth and incomes of the top 1% and the lower 99% continue to increase; ordinary people feel in their bones that the system is rigged; lower-middle-class and working-class resentment flares and finds its expression in support for a superficially anti-establishment Leader who proclaims that he alone can set things right.
The pro-plutocratic agenda of Ryan-Trump is designed to return us to the robber baron glories of the Gilded Age. Will this Gilded Age once again followed by another Great Recession or Depression?
The Democrats must offer a left of center social-economic alternative. Otherwise they will remain irrelevant
54
Here at home, socialism may or may not be getting a new hearing. It is clear, however, Trump's self-interest and the Ryan-GOP agenda, so harmful to the poor, are "Russianizing" the American people:
"Russian life [is marked by] the all-pervasive cynicism that no institution is to be trusted, because no institution is bigger than the avarice of the person in charge."--Michael Idov, "Russia: Life After Trust," New York Magazine (January 23-February 5, 2017), p. 22.
The avaricious Trump and the pro-plutocratic Trumpublican agenda are effectively demoralizing the larger American public and fostering an increasingly cynical view of politics, politicians and America's role in the world.
A demoralized people will view Trump's foreign policy--whatever that may be--with cynical skepticism. A further weakening of public trust in Trump's "leadership" will invite foreign enemies to test American power and resolve.
Americas military and diplomatic resources are and will be increasingly challenged abroad. At Helsinki, President Trump's further loss of international and domestic credibility tempts foreign adversaries to test any perceived American weaknesses.
If Vladimir Putin by his electoral interference had hoped to weaken America's international prestige and leadership, he has already succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Is there much doubt that Putin and others will attempt to further diminish our nation's international reputation?
7
The people of "socialist" Denmark are said to be the happiest in the world and there is plenty of free enterprise there. In Norway, citizens say yes, they pay high taxes, but they don't have to worry about going bankrupt from medical bills or still be paying off their education well into old age.
And Scandinavians are not immigrating in droves to the United States.
64
@Kaari At the end of the day, Denmark is not socialist. It just has a lot of social institutions.
Danes, can manufacture stuff, market stuff, distribute stuff, employ people. They can take and quit jobs.
Medical care and University are easy to organize for a small homogeneous population.
What the US take away in handouts it saves in taxes and offerings of flexibility.
2
@Kaari Are Americans immigrating in droves to Scandinavia or Denmark? I don't think so.
The midterm elections will answer all of these question. We will see what type of govt. a majority of americans want. The house and senate majority will show who we are and what kind of govt. we will have for the future. 2020 will be to late.
VOTE Your future and my granddaughters future depend on it.
7
Unfortunately socialism is a dirty word in America. While I am not sure I agree with all of socialism’s tenets, there are a few that are unquestionably good. The first is universal healthcare. Yes, people have a fundamental right to healthcare and we should all be treated equally in our healthcare system. Of course we do not have that today in America. The more money you have, the better your healthcare is. It is impossible to have a great healthcare system that is based solely on profit. That is because they make more money by not curing you. Then there is universal access to education. There is only ONE thing that should matter when it comes to education and it’s not money. Everyone should have the right to a higher education if they have the smarts and not just the money. Instead, we have a current educational system that takes terrible advantage of students through a thoroughly flawed student loan program. Except for the banks that is. It is unconscionable that we are mortgaging our children’s future to fatten the coffers of the likes of JP Morgan and Bank of America. The very people who brought us the Great Recession and then bailed themselves out with our tax money while we received nothing. It’s time for folks to get mad about it and do something about it. Capitalism has clearly failed us (unless you’re in the 1%) so why not try a few socialist ideas? You can bet that the 1% is doing all they can to make you think socialism is bad.