The Sacramento Bee recently published an article by Malik Pitchford in which he quotes Barack Obama saying that “Socialism is still a loaded word for some folks.” This is so very true. I would argue, a fortiori, that to many Americans the label is still a dirty word, an epithet used by politicians to destroy their opponents, a strategy that Republicans often use successfully.
I grew up a socialist and I remain a socialist. My parents were socialists, as were most of the people I knew. To me, socialism is the most sensible ideology. Growing up, I also assumed that the world was moving in the direction of socialism. I still believe this. But I could be wrong.
In this brief article, I cannot do justice to the many different meanings of the word “Socialism.” Nor do I touch upon the different forms of socialism in the world. For example, the Soviet Union was called "Communist." However, the USSR defined itself as a socialist state (USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
What about the distinction between "social democracy" and "liberal democracy"? Some say that most of the European Union consists of Social Democracies, whereas the US is often called a Liberal Democracy. However, the distinction is not firm. It is more a matter of degree. Freedom House, for example, classifies most Western European Countries, as well as a Australia and Canada, as both social democracies AND liberal democracies.
The literature on “Socialism” is vast. The term means many different things. Many countries and political parties around the world have adopted varying degrees/elements of “socialism.” For example, Fried and Sanders’ Socialist Thought (Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964) includes discussions of “Utopian Socialism,” “Scientific Socialism,” “Marx and Engels,” “Bolshevism,” anarcho-collectivists such as Bakunin and Kropotkin, Leninism, and much more.
Then, too, some view Socialism as an ideology, others see it as an economic system (as well).
At the risk of simplifying: Socialism’s bottom line is (1) the primacy of equality among all humans, (2) the public ownership and management of the means of production and distribution, and of essential but unprofitable services (e.g. health care, education, public transportation), and (3) a collectivist social organization. Furthermore, the extent to which a society depends on collective, public economic solutions, as opposed to private economic practices, is a matter of degree. The key question is: To what extent is an economy guided by the principles of Adam Smith or Karl Marx?
An excellent discussion of Socialism is Olga Shevchenko’s article “Socialism” in the Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization, (2012). Here is how she begins: “The rise and later the decline of state socialism has defined the political landscape of the twentieth century...The number of countries that claim to adhere to the state socialist model has dwindled (and the exact extent to which they embody socialist principles is questionable).
Shevchenko succinctly traces the history and evolution of Socialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Utopian Socialism, Marx, Communism, etc.
Then, the bulk of her article discusses the implementation of Socialism in the Soviet Union. The system of State Socialism that emerged in Russia from 1917 onwards was drastically affected by the specific conditions in that country at the time. It was a backward agrarian society, it needed to modernize at a frightful pace in order to survive, etc. Thus, what evolved was an extremely repressive and in the end inefficient system.
The Soviet failure is now universally recognized. It was the failure of the first massive realization of “socialism.” What developed was a State Socialism with the Party holding a monopoly of power.
Today, we have a largely Capitalist world. There is one country left that still follows the Soviet state socialist model - Cuba. There are some aberrations such as North Korea, which is primarily a nuclear threat to the world. And then there is China. It calls itself “Communist,” but its system is difficult to characterize. Its two most salient features are: (1) Unlike much of the developed world (Western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.), it is undemocratic. (2) It is economically and politically more efficient (it has enjoyed much faster economic growth, and a far more successful response to the Covid pandemic than the US and Europe). While the first of these features is not to be emulated, the second one suggests that the world may have lessons to learn from China.
However, this is not the end of the story: Inequality has been on the rise for decades, reaching astronomical levels, especially in the US and in parts of the Third World. Dozens of billionaires in the US and elsewhere enjoy individual net worths that exceed the GNP of many dozens of entire nations!
Nor can accelerated economic growth be the solution, as it would aggravate the already severe environmental damage being done to the planet.
As Shevchenko notes, racism, inequality and injustice are not going away. These problems call for an alternative to BOTH the current capitalist world order AND Soviet-style socialism. There is a need for a “third way.” The failure of Soviet-style Socialism does not mean the failure of socialism per se. The third way will need to incorporate major socialist principles. Many advanced democracies - Scandinavia, Germany, Japan, the Benelux, etc.- already demonstrate the more benign and humane quality of life that is possible in “mixed” economies; that is, economies that combine elements of the free enterprise system AND Socialism. Universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare, vastly improved public provision of childcare, sick leave, paid parental leave, paid vacation, more generous unemployment compensation, government ownership and management of unprofitable but essential sectors of the economy, including services such as transportation (both ground and air), education, and scientific research. In sum, a much greater dose of “socialism,” particularly in the US.
As Shevchenko writes, “...socialist (or social democratic or labor ) parties, whose policies may have little in common with those of state socialist regimes, remain important players in the political landscape of many democratic nations, from Australia to Norway.”
It is in that sense that I consider myself a life-long socialist. Were I an Englishman, I would vote for Labor, in Holland I would vote for the PVDA (labor) or for the Socialist Party, in Germany for the Social Democrats. Being an American, I belong to the Democratic party, because that IS our “socialist” party, or at least, it is halfway there. Aren’t Social Security and Medicare socialism? Aren’t ALL government services socialism? Is progressive taxation not socialism? The question is not whether to have socialism or not, but HOW MUCH socialism is needed.
Shevchenko’s last words are the most important: “The future of Socialism is still largely open.” And as Pitchford notes, “Among young American adults, socialism is as popular an ideology as free-market capitalism, according to a 2019 Gallup pole.” leave comment here
© Tom Kando 2020;All Rights Reserved
10 comments:
Norway is often cited as an example, but one reason it works is there is no national debt. They pay for college largely for interest on investments in “capitalist” enterprises. Otherwise it’s hard to find a socialist society that is not run by a dictatorship. If Sanders advocated paying off the national debt, the money we pay for debt could probably pay for healthcare and college. Otherwise it sounds like a pipe dream or a road to totalitarianism. Plato argued that democracies fail when the people try to pay themselves from the treasury with money they don’t put in.
We happen to live in the US. We might as well use words that can be broadly understood in the US. "Socialism" is not one of them. Say "Socialism" and probably a majority of Americans understand "Communism", "Cuba," "Venezuela". Faced with a president who is a master at branding, using the word "socialism" to mean something that is not Communism, Cuba or Venezuela is doing the branding for him. Good luck to achieving what you really want, which is not, I am sure, the reality of Communism, Cuba or Venezuela, anymore than Medicare is, or a public utility like SMUD or a water district.
By the way, Tom, the Sacramento Bee this last Sunday 12/20/20 published an article that I initiated on a topic I had raised earlier on your blog (equity.) The e-version can be reached at:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article247904605.html
A snippet of an interview I gave can be seen at:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/article247819345.html
Tom, I love how you can delineate the finer meanings of words... and yet you can stay true to your convictions and higher ideals. I also love how much fun you have in exploring societal issues... and your willingness to look at all sides. You're really a delight when a person is ready to hear the love coming out of your heart! Keep it up.
I am not a socialist.
I believe Biden and Kamala and Trump are not good leaders
Hi Tom,
I agree with so much of what you wrote there. I suspect only Cuba and n Korea still adhere to full control and ownership of the means of production. And I think this is the main difference (along with their anti democratic aspects) which separates them from "socialist” countries: how many and what types of companies the governments insist on owning. So the Northern European countries are the most appealing to me( and I think, to you): governments probably shouldn’t and don’t need to own farms or coal mines (increasingly irrelevant, except in West Virginia) or car factories and probably not airlines or even a national health service ( I think Germany and Switzerland and perhaps France do ok in delivering reasonably priced government subsidized healthcare compared to Canada or Britain).
I guess another interesting issue is whether services(major parts of modern economies compared to products) are government owned. None of this directly addresses distribution of wealth except your comments on billionaires.
Today it seems to me “socialism” is simultaneously ill defined and rapidly changing . Plus it’s also a pr or marketing tool (mainly for conservatives) to scare people. If I had been Bernie Sanders, I would hope I would have become way more flexible years ago and have found a neologism to replace “socialism.” I like a lot of what AOC says especially when she points out correctly the top tax rate used to be 90% . In the preReagan days. I think there should be way more pressure on Gates Bezos et al to have socially determined goals in their charity. But it’s still good that someone like them is around—if they are— to comment on, offer an alternative to “government” endorsed goals of, say, a Trump administration.
The more I talk about this the more I recognize I’m ill informed and prejudiced. As to an incomes policy, I think I’m definitely socialist but wouldn’t want the label.
Anyway. Tom, a thoughtful provocative piece.
Tom,
This is an excellent article. I am writing tomorrow some thoughts and prayers for the holidays and particularly for the new year. I know that you will continue to add good thinking to this crazy world. Happy New Year to you and your wife.
Thank you all for your diverse reactions, and for the compliments from Hutch and Don.
Gordon and anonymous don’t agree. That’s okay. I’m glad that I am not just preaching to the choir. I always respect Gordon’s arguments, even when I disagree with him. It is true that the correlation between (alleged) “socialism” and dictatorship is uncomfortably high. Examples, in addition to the USSR, include current Venezuela and the mother of all evils - National Socialism. That said, I’ll just repeat myself: the future of socialism is still largely open.
Edric’s point is interesting: Maybe the very word “socialism” can no longer be rehabilitated in the US. I am reminded that a similar fate may be befalling the word “liberal” (thank you, Fox News). I notice that many “liberals” increasingly prefer to call themselves something else, for example “progressive." Also, congratulations to Edric for publically exposing the Quinton Watts miscarriage of justice. I did read about this in the Bee a couple of weeks ago.
Jon brings up the thorny question of WHICH specific services and other elements of the national economy are better socialized. This is a complex conversation better left to experts (e.g. economists). He also touches upon income redistribution and, like Edric, whether or not progressives might be better off abandoning the “socialist” label, for pragmatic reasons. All excellent points.
Dr. Tom: I like both of your critiques from 2019 and 2020 and the point that socialism is embedded within the U.S. , it’s about degree and type. Our society has neglected the social needs of its citizens and this requires that we take a hard look at these social inequities and the failures of our current system in this regard . Our democracy is social to an extent and we need to look at ways it could become more social; especially as we have gone through 2020 seeing such wide disparities in economics, healthcare, police-community social justice, and everything imaginable under the sun.
Happy New Year 2021! It gets better, right?
Gail :-)
Enjoyed very much. Perspective!
Olga’s article made me believe in the social rights that every human could feel entitled to no matter what society they belong to. Doesn’t "society" imply that the social must be integrated into whatever type of business or politics a society imagines? I provide an example here: If I am in the business of managing the entire food supply for everyone, shouldn’t I create a fair playing field so that everyone can have the opportunity to eat everyday, at least two or three meals? My point is that conservative capitalists have failed to acknowledge that the social needs of humanity are just as important as the business of accruing wealth; what could be more important than ensuring the basic social needs of the citizenry, which benefit the capitalists? For example, If health economists fail to provide me with paid sick leave, access to health care or the ability to take a vacation to re-energize myself, why expect superior work performance from me? Herein lies the problem with capitalism. The tunnel vision of greedy capitalists wanting to accrue more and more wealth while trampling on diseased and broken down bodies for the sake of more capital is sickening.
This "wealth at all costs" mentality is rooted in human ignorance among those who don’t see that every society must care about its people. Hopefully, all societies continue to make social progress - albeit minuscule at times - to socially transform oppressive regimes.
No system is perfect, but we can at least agree that there are wide systemic inequities between the haves and have nots in the United States that are worse than those found in many countries with smaller GDPs.
We all desire to have a good life, and this requires that we find a healthy balance. Olga’s article documents how societies have embraced different types of socialism at various periods throughout history, some better than others. She doesn't discuss the historical context in which these attempts at socialism took place. Her closing argument suggests a path for countries to reach a "middle ground" between socialism and capitalism. Hopefully the middle ground to which the author is pointing involves equal rights and social justice for all. I can’t think of a better path to achieve this than a social democracy. And this experiment is happening in real time at this very moment, with all its failures and successes along the way.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!