Sunday, August 11, 2013
What America Needs is a Good, Strong Socialist Party
by Tom Kando
Socialism: (sõˊshə lizˊ əm): A system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, etc. in the community as a whole. From the Latin socius: comrade.
In the United States, “Socialism” is taboo. It is sacrilegious. The label, when applied to a politician, is a death sentence. It is un-American. Centrist politicians such as President Obama and progressives such as economist Robert Reich struggle desperately NOT to be labeled “socialists.”
On the other hand, I am perfectly comfortable calling myself a socialist (I’m not running for office), and I also find it reasonable to call people such as Reich and even Obama at least “somewhat socialistic.”
You see, it’s all a matter of definition, a matter of degree: The definition with which I start this article (Random House) is just one possible definition. Ever since its beginnings in France in the early 1800s, Socialism has evolved into many different forms (see for example “Socialist Thought,” by Albert Fried and Ronald Sanders, Doubleday Anchor). The extreme forms of Socialism associated with Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao, and enacted in the Soviet Union and in other totalitarian states, have given Socialism a bad name. In the extreme, Socialism can indeed mean the total collectivization of the economy and the total expropriation of private property.
However, there are degrees of Socialism. Today, a majority of the countries of the world have socialist parties. Every Western European democracy has one. There, the government is periodically controlled by the socialist party, as is currently the case in France, as happens whenever Labour governs Britain, the Social Democrats govern Germany, the PVDA governs in the Netherlands, and socialist parties are in charge in Scandinavia.
In all such instances of socialist rule, we need a totally different definition of Socialism. Let me suggest such a definition - one to which I subscribe, and one which would describe the sort of socialist party that should thrive in the US:
A moderate social-democratic system includes:
(1) strong labor unions,
(2) progressive taxation which re-distributes wealth and therefore
(3) insures a high degree of income equality.
(4) Many services are funded and run by the government, especially those services which are essential but not profitable. This includes first and foremost:
healthcare,
law enforcement and criminal justice,
education,
public transportation (including air and rail travel),
postal service,
many forms of communication, including telephone and some Internet, and
some media.
(5) The government provides adequate unemployment and disability compensation,
(6) paid parental leave,
(7) several weeks annual paid vacation, and
(8) defined retirement benefits.
Obviously, for the government to do so much, taxes must be raised. Taxes must be progressive (the more you make, the higher the percentage of your income you hand over), but in total we should hand over about half of our income to the government, as they do in Scandinavia. Yes, that means that some very rich people must hand over more than 50%.
We can call this the “Nordic model,” a mix of Socialism and Capitalism. It has been in place for nearly a century in Scandinavia, where - as a result - the quality of life is the best in the world.
The perceptive reader will note that America already has many of these things, to a greater or lesser extent. Indeed, if you open your eyes, you see that America already has some Socialism. Just not enough. Furthermore, the Republican plutocracy is trying to destroy what’s left of Socialism in America.
In the past, America did have a vibrant socialist movement, with several strands. One of these was the Democratic Socialist Party, led by Michael Harrington and Alex Garber (among others), the chairman of my own academic department. Most socialists in the West broke early on with the extreme socialist movements, such as Communism, Trotskyism and others.
Today, most civilized countries have vigorous moderate socialist parties. The US should have one as well. Our Tweedledee-Tweedledum two-party system makes third-party candidacies quixotic. Third party candidates such as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are bound to fail, and sometimes they do more harm than good, as when Nader gave the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000.
Were America to have a strong socialist party, it could field congressional candidates who would stand a chance. As it is, the US Congress has only one socialist: Bernie Sanders, senator from Vermont. If Congress had a significant socialist bloc, this could produce a functioning ruling coalition with the Democrats. leave comment here
19 comments:
America needs many other things that won't happen anytime soon.
Thanks for your comment, Stefan. I'm afraid that you might be right
America has no need of a socialist party. The purported need for one is based on a lack of knowledge of economic fundamentals. Both conservatives and socialists make the same mistake in ignoring the question of land; specifically who owns the land and who collects the economic rent from land. Land is a gift of nature and the value associated with it is a result of its natural properties or of the growth of the human society around it. It does not come from the work of the landholder. It is also fixed in supply and will not be reduced in amount by taxation. This makes it an ideal source of tax revenues, one that should be applied before resorting to sales or income taxes, which do have negative effects on the economy.
Hey Tom,
You seem to be hitting the nail on the head these days. I have been thinking about the same phenomenon, but of course without your backup research and history. If we could only think of an acceptable name, instead of socialist, people are so simple they might not realize it. When it was dogfish no one would eat it; now it's rock salmon and no one remembers.
I agree with both of you, as would my husband.
Thank you for your comments.
Luney reminds me of Henry George (Progress and Poverty). I only recall this very vaguely, but I believe that George also attributed great importance to land, somehow. Also, some would classify him as some sort of "socialist..."
I appreciate it that Don and JoAnn agree with me. Don's analogy is funny and astute.
For reasons I cannot grasp, we in American persist in denying two things: 1) there are some activities that are correctly the province of government (for example, defense, police, fire, and infrastructure, and 2) it requires money in the form of taxes to provide those activities.
I think ownership of the means of production need not be part of the equation. However, land and the radio spectrum are the property of all, and government serves as the steward of the people.
Obama a "centrist"? Tom, Please! The God of socialism, all-powerful government, has been the dominant influence in America since the 1960's, and the results have not been good, especially for the intended beneficiaries of these noble dreams - the poor and the middle class. It has been the liberal - socialist oriented democrats, and their philosophy, that have dominated the courts, the presidency, Congress, the media, and the schools, for most of this period, not the evil conservative capitalists. I think the problem with socialists is that they think that if only they were in power, things would be fair for everyone. Perhaps some re-reading of Animal Farm would help them to rediscover Madison's notion that every man - liberal and conservative, believer and unbeliever - are a combination of good and bad, and this is why we need limited government, for " If men were angels, no government would be necessary, If angels were to govern men, restraints on government would not be necessary". May have screwed up the quote, but you get the idea.
Good comments, you all.
I agree with Barry: That’s why I advocate a moderate form of social democracy in my piece - a mix of socialism and capitalism.
Latest Anonymous’ comments are well thought-out, but I disagree:
That Obama is a centrist is demonstrated again these days by the criticism he gets from the LEFT. For example, he endorses the bulk of the controversial NSA surveillance, something which displeases civil libertarians, the ACLU, me, i.o.w. the millions who are to his LEFT.
It is true that from the 1930s through the 1960s, America was becoming more progressive (more “socialistic” if you will). However, the American welfare state has been in retreat at least since the beginning of the Reagan revolution, a retreat which has accelerated since the rise of the Tea Party.
I attribute the decline in the quality of life in this country to the “decline of socialism,” in other words exactly to the opposite of what anonymous claims.
I look at empirical foreign evidence (again, the “Nordic model”) and I see that a higher level of “socialism” (for example, an overall taxation level of about 50%) is associated with a vastly superior quality of life for the overwhelming majority of the population.
Of course, you can lecture me about “multiple causation,” “spurious correlations,” the fact that countries such as Norway are homogeneous whereas we are not, etc... Nevertheless, I firmly believe that their system works better than ours.
To address a few main points. The Left did voice objection to NSA surveillance, maybe because they saw it cutting both ways - hurting both conservative and Leftist subjects. Yet they were largely silent regarding the IRS harassing of mainly conservative groups, yet leaving liberal groups alone. "Welfare state in retreat?" The pattern beginning with Bush of expanding the food stamp program, was then radically expanded by Obama. As I recall, the program has doubled since 2008. As for the Nordic countries excelling us in quality of life, that is an unfair comparison, given the much smaller population base, the absence of racial and ethnic diversity, and the associated problems; as well as no need to pay for an expensive military. They also do not have the absurdity of open borders, and the associated public costs, which is the death knell for any society.
Most of these things can be refuted:
State and municipal budgets are down, as is the number of public employees, including the overall federal work force. Of course, during recessionary times, the federal government engages in stimulative monetary policy (“quantitative easing,” etc.) - temporarily. Overall, there is no doubt about the long-term reduction in the safety net and in public services.
Just one example: Sacramento public schools: It is increasingly difficult to even get your children INTO your desired area public school, due to the numerous closures, and the breadth of programs and services offered by the schools pales in comparison with a generation ago.
As to the quality of life here and in Scandinavia: I already admitted in my previous comment that due to the many differences between us and them, comparisons are difficult.
You mention the following differences: ethnic diversity, military expenses, open borders, and the cost of immigration, among other factors...
Hmm...the first of these three factors? Maybe. The second one? So let’s reduce our military budget. The third one? Europe is as wide open as we are...The fourth one? Immigrants are an economic boon, not a bane.
Tom- three comments. First, America traditionally has been blessed with non-ideological parties until recently and I think the record served us well. Ideological parties seem to work better in parliamentary systems.
Second, the best equivalent for a socialist party in the US is the democrats - who are bounded by the trial lawyers and the public employee unions. Third, I am not sure why your side always argues that the first "improvement" one needs is to raise taxes. In order to understand the role of taxes you need to add both federal and state burdens. We are close to 40% when you add in all the part of the system. That is pretty close to your beloved socialist heavens.
The US is evolving into the worst of both systems - Crony Capitalism where government rewards and punishes business at a whim. All the nonsense like Cash for Clunkers and the gift of funds to favored cronies (like Solyndra and even Tesla) have done nothing for economic growth except for the influence of government.
As for the comments - your quote about state and local spending/employment being down is simply wrong. Indeed the numbers for state budgets and employment is down but only from the artificial highs that were created in the so called "stimulus" bill. And to the canard about reducing military expenses - military spending as a percentage of GDP or as a percentage of the federal budget is way down - perhaps the best way to reduce the level of military spending is to reduce the total amount of GDP extracted from the economy.
Two quotes - "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." (Lady Thatcher) and from Winston Churchill - Socialism evolves very quickly from utopia to queue-topia.
I thank Jonathan for his thoughtful comments.
I agree that our "default" "socialistic" party is the Democratic Party. I just feel that it is too centrist and too moderate, as long as it includes large conservative elements (such as Southern Democrats).
I don’t want to get into a endless back-and-forth rally about alleged facts.
Our military budget? Suffice it to say that the US military budget is about half of the world’s total. Public spending/employment? I could marshal many facts to support my position...
Moving on: Jonathan speaks of “growth.” That’s a whole other, but related, topic: I have often argued that we (the world, America, highly industrialized society, etc.) cannot continue to grow for ever.
A country like, say, Switzerland - having reached an extremely comfortable level of consumption and standard of living - should not “grow” any more - economically, demographically, or otherwise. Sure, continue to tinker here and there and improve things. But basically, in my view, if Switzerland’s population today is 8 million people and its GDP is $700 billion, those numbers don’t need to grow anymore. If these overall quantities are about the same in 10 or 20 years from now, that’s just fine. That’s not an indication that there is something wrong with the country, that it is “stagnating” somehow...
And it should be so with many other highly affluent countries.
So my point it: “Growth” should not be the sacrosanct goal which it almost universally is. And it should not be what everyone relies on for the dissipation of poverty, unemployment and inequality. Re-distribution should play a much greater role towards that objective.
I enjoyed this piece-Gail
If illegal immigrants are a "economic boon" to our society, and if the Scandinavian countries are as open to immigration as we are, then wouldn't the Scandinavians be eager to import our Mexican brothers to improve the Scandinavian economy? How has the open borders attitude worked out in Europe with the Muslim immigrants? And this idea that the illegal immigrants to America contribute more than they take, is simply not the case. Not even close. Crime, healthcare, education, etc., costs of the immigrants and their families far exceed any economic contribution. And that doesn't even take into account the economic negative to society as low-skilled American workers can claim there are no jobs, because jobs they should be working are largely taken by the illegals.
Thanks for the latest comments, Gail and anonymous:
Opposition to the latest influx of immigrants - in recent decades primarily from South of the border and most recently from Asia - is as old as the country’s history. Each new wave consists of ethnic groups that differ from the already established population, new groups which are therefore perceived as undesirable.
History repeats itself. It used to be that the Irish were undesirable, then Italians and other Southern Europeans, then Hungarian “riff raff” like me and other Eastern Europeans, etc.
In the end, all these groups became productive, well-integrated Americans, for the greater glory of this country whose ENTIRE population consists of immigrants and their descendants (apart from native Americans).
Already, we see the next wave: Not from Latin America, but from Asia. In fifty years from now, if the next major wave comes from, say, Africa, the Middle East or some other place, watch the Hispanic-Americans - who by then will be established “blue-blooded” Americans - refer to the newcomers as lazy, shiftless, and a burden.
(Of course, I am not serious about this latter prediction, because there does come a time when the country is sort of “full.” But in the past, at any rate, this is how it's been).
Just a minor addition:
In one respect, anonymous and I have been talking alongside each other: He started the exchange talking about "open borders." I then replied that immigration was "a boon, not a bane." He then introduced the qualifier "illegal" to "immigration." I overlooked that.
All I want to say now is that I am aware of the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, and that I do find it meaningful. For example, I had to wait 10 years before I became an American - 5 for my green card and another 5 for my citizenship.
As to the relative cost (and benefit) to America of these two types of immigration, I cannot do justice to that topic at this time.
Hi Tom,
I also thought: Having Mexico close by and providing us cheap labor (many of whom are illegal), esp. for the immensely hard agricultural work, contributes greatly to our economy. Cheap food for us and competitive food (esp. Calif.) for export. A visitor commented our food is cheaper than they buy in China, with much less income.
Of course American conservatives have counter arguments about illegals, part of which I grant.
Also:
My views (re socialism) are just the same. Thanks for this blog. I appreciate Bernie Sanders very much. I gave a long talk to the Renaissance Society on Tommy Douglas, Canadian socialist politician who pushed thru Canadian Medicare in his province of Saskatchewan, then in the early 1960s nationally. He was an orthodox socialist (and democratic) during the Depression, but by the 1950s was more of a proponent of a welfare capitalist society. Is that what most European socialists espouse today? But if the U.S. continues in its present direction, one might again espouse "down with capitalism!"
Thanks for your blogs.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!