So, with everyone freaking out about the rise of socialism on the left, I do want to do my part in explaining this phenomenon. These are my own views, i dont speak for anyone else, but this is essentially how I interpret it.
So...capitalism isn't working for people. As I keep pointing out, 2016 marked the beginning of major pushback to the neoliberal consensus, ie, the ideology of the Reagan revolution marked by the Reagan republicans with their trickle down economics, and the Third Way democrats, who offered a weaker version of that. The fact is, this brand of politics has led to widening income inequality between the rich and poor, and it is clear that the current way of doing things isn't working. This has precipitated the rise of anti establishment factions on the left and right, which have since radicalized to varying degrees since 2016.
On the right, we have MAGA and the America first movement, which is based in part in reaction to the Obama years and the fear of the right losing to "the coalition of the ascendant", ie, that 2010s idea that the downfall of the GOP was inevitable, leading to fear of whites becoming a minority in their own country, and conservatism being on the way out for good. However, this also had economic populist views based on pushback to free trade agreements and outsourcing, as well as immigration. Essentially, they wanna get rid of immigrants and put tariffs on everything. By doing that, we'll bring the jobs back and "Make America Great Again" as they call it. The movement has some legitimate populism in it among the voter base, but for the most part, Trump is a demagogue, he offers repackaged trickle down economics, and has no real solutions. Even worse, the movement has become increasingly radical in recent years between the January 6th movement, trends toward authoritarianism and Christian nationalism, and even outright fascism and nazism in its most recent variants. It's kinda become the worst of humanity, and is a very toxic ideology.
However, there are also various movements on the left. My own views are more aligned with "human centered capitalism" a UBI centric movement most often associated with Andrew yang, but actually goes deeper than that. I consider myself a thinker of the modern movement in that regard and my own ideas are based on giving people a UBI, ending poverty, and improving capitalism.
However, more common on the anti establishment left are the views of Bernie Sanders, AOC, Zohran Mamdani, and so called "democratic socialism." I've discussed the movement before on here so for long time readers none of this is anything new, but it does deserve coverage given the modern environment.
So, what is "democratic socialism?" It's unclear since if you ask ten socialists you'll get eleven answers, but the general idea is this: it is a rethinking of socialism within a more reformist, democratic direction, as opposed to the flat out revolutionary socialism of Marxism-Leninism. In a sense, it rejects Marxism Leninism, seeking a different path, and with that, we should already put the pitchforks down. We dont have to worry about most democratic socialists becoming tankies.
So what do democratic socialists want? Well, they say they want socialism. Okay, so how do we accomplish socialism? That's the kicker! Many of them dont have clear answers. They might talk about worker cooperatives, or support "decommodifying" various industries, but when you actually look at their ideas, they seem relatively mild and sane.
I don't honestly believe that these guys have a clear transition to a socialist system for the most part. Many of them simply don't have the mechanisms for that. With that being said, what difference do they have between themselves and social democrats? Very little, quite frankly. And that's the thing. If you look at Bernie's proposals for the country, he proposed things like a $15 minimum wage, which is was a very stiff, progressive minimum wage at the time ($18-19 is the modern equivalent), medicare for all (which is "socialist" but let's face it, many capitalistic nations have "socialized medicine" through either single payer or a beverridge model), free college (which, again, many Europeans have), public housing, and a green new deal. Quite frankly, these policies seem pretty aligned with FDR, to the point I'd actually classify demsocs as a form of "new deal liberal". They hate being called liberals because they're used to the term being associated with the third way of the democratic party, but let's face it...that's what they are...I mean, I consider all reformists who operate within capitalism to be liberal. And while socialists may bluster about the evils of capitalism and the glories of "socialism", again, it is mostly bluster. policy wise, they don't have many actual ways of getting to socialism.
So, what is "socialism" according to them? The workers owning the means of production. Do they actually support the workers owning the means of production? Sure. They support two forms of "socialism".
One is worker cooperatives, or market socialism. So imagine you have markets, but instead of having a boss or CEO at the top, you have workers councils, or elected leaders. The point is, the structures are supposed to be democratic. Does this model of socialism work? Yeah. I mean, worker cooperatives are a thing. Do I think they should be a universal model? Not really. I personally think that unions or the bargaining power a UBI would provide could do the job just as well. But I do admit depending on implementation the idea could work. Germany, which...during the cold war was the western half of the country, the capitalist half, had codetermination in their businesses where workers were represented with so many seats on the board of directors. And it seemed to work, and improved worker pay and working conditions. And it still existed within a capitalist framework. It should be noted these ideas can still be implemented within a free market economy, and despite all of their bluster about socialism, they kinda need capitalism for their socialist ideas to work. I mean, most of these guys focus more on reforming capitalism than achieving some "full socialist" economy.
On the second form of socialism, that is a bit closer to "full socialism." As I said, they want to "decommodify" certain industries and have the government run them instead of private markets. For some, like healthcare and education, this isn't a terrible idea. The government can do some things more efficiently than private markets, and again, many capitalist nations have these elements of "socialism" in them and they work. Free market everything is not always good for society. However, sometimes they get a bit out there or go too far. Mamdani has some interesting ideas that I think are a bit extreme, like socialized housing and grocery stores, but even these arent terrible ideas. His model for housing seems based off of the red vienna model, which has its pros, it has its cons too. I do think it goes a bit too far, but can it exist within a capitalist system? Sure. And socialized grocery stores, well it could lower the price of groceries a little by getting rid of overhead. Some socialists also talk about public utilities at the local level, which can work. My own city has municipal water, it works, it's not the worst thing ever. If anything it keeps the price reasonable and i have more trust in government run utilities than I do in privately run ones.
With their safety nets, they tend to defend inefficient safety nets like SNAP, which can be full of restrictions, and they tend to hate the idea of cash since "those evil capitalists will just suck it all up", but I think that at some point they just lose the plot. And that's one of the biggest sources of contention between my ideology and them. Sometimes they just push these inefficient programs when I'm like "why not give cash?" and then they start screaming about evil capitalists and how cash is bad and blah blah blah. LIke, sometimes they go too far with stuff, I admit that. However, a good portion of the time, their ideas are benign and even as a "capitalist" i can appreciate them. Sometimes they wax too ideological for my tastes, and get too rigid in their thinking, where they think anything short of their solutions is too "liberal", which is pejorative, but given the polarized environment, part of me doesn't blame them. Because third way libs just have a way of whittling everything down to the point of uselessness that at some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say "if you do less than than this then you're a sellout and a centrist." Even I do this game, and this blog is a testament to this. You kinda have to when dealing with bad faith actors in the establishment wing of the democratic party.
This does put me in an awkward spot though. As I always say, my ideas are radical but also moderate. Basically, I'm left of the libs and often think like a socialist would, and use rhetoric and tactics similar to socialists. I'll also align with socialists against the democratic party establishment. But at the same time, I'm not a "true believer", because I'm NOT a socialist. My ideology is just a bit different, as are my solutions. I forge my own path based on my own convictions and this puts me somewhere between the two factions.
The thing with me is, I am an ex conservative, I do believe in some level of pragmatism. Growing up, behind the ideological arguments was this idea that left wing ideas just "don't work." So, my whole thing was to make a version of left wing politics that does. And I can envision publicly funded ideas within capitalism, but I dont have this love affair with socialism, and do admit the most extreme socialists tend to advocate for economies that look a little too...soviet for my tastes. Like that's the thing. While we can debate all day about the oughts of society, and what things "should" look like, we need society to function at the end of the day. Democratic socialists avoid some obstacles I see as problematic with more extreme models like Marxism-Leninism but sometimes they just fall into some others. A lot of the time this isnt a huge deal, but I just think capitalism is a functional system, even if flawed, and the answer is to fix those flaws within the system, not to do away with the system, as that's like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. meanwhile these guys run the risk of going too far in their solutions. It is a long term concern of the movement. Just like america first is morphing into a nazi movement, the future of the "democratic socialists" might be a bit less democratic and more socialist. We're already seeing some of these guys treat ME as a centrist and a sell out, so yeah, keep an eye on them. Still, I will say this, most are just socdems with edge and should be treated as such. It's always good to evaluate the policies of the candidates who run. While rhetoric can have edge, most of the time their policies are more aligned with social democracy. And even if they scream about ideological purity in bashing me, a "human centered capitalism", I'll straight up agree with most demsocs running for office on like 80% of issues. Like really, my big difference with them on POLICY is on UBI vs JG, or UBI vs traditional welfare.
On that one...I like UBI. I think the easiest way to help people is to give them cash, and that cash would also give people freedom to operate within the economy as they please. I do recognize some industries are so flawed that additional programs are needed, like at least a public option to healthcare (I like M4A but not the price tag), free college, and public housing, but ultimately, I think cash is the best way to help people. Socialists want to decommodify all industries. They want the government to give people food directly and stuff, which I think is inefficient and stupid. They literally dont trust markets and think profit seekers will screw people no matter what. Meanwhile i think many industries are more capable of being regulated by market forces being in proper balance, meaning there being enough competition to keep prices in check. And I think that markets and cash just give people more choice. We should want more choice. I think one of the less attractive aspects of socialism is the government tells you whats good for you. No, let individuals decide what they want. Just address the most egregious profit seekers in select industries while leaving other stuff profit. I think some stuff being capitalist and some stuff being more socialist is fine. Different models work for different things, but capitalism should be the default. Socialism being the default can lead to problematic and inefficient outcomes.
On the other matter, socialists are believers in jobs and work. Their ideas come from marx and the whole idea that workers should be entitled to the fruit of their labor according to the labor theory of value. Their whole problem with capitalism is the fact that this ownership class siphons wealth away from workers and toward themselves, and that by having "socialism", workers will get what they deserve. As such, they have no problem with work itself, and think that it's a noble endeavor everyone should engage in.
Meanwhile, my ideology is a bit different. My own ideology is based more in karl widerquist and his "indepentarian" philosophy. I believe that the problem with capitalism isnt necessarily private ownership of the means of production, but that people are coerced to work in a system where work is increasingly unnecessary. Capitalism does produce economic surpluses and efficiency that has led to prosperity never before known. But...the system coerces people to work despite that increasing surplus and efficiency. This essentially enslaves people in effect to their workplaces. They choose to work "freely" but such choice isnt truly free. They have a choice of employers, but not a choice to not be employed at all. Their bargaining power is suppressed, and their contributions are devalued. This leads to the "exploitation" that marx points out in the first place. For me, the solution isnt socialism, it's liberation from coercion itself. It's a more individualistic, pro freedom ideology.
IN terms of the problems of unemployment, I see unemployment as a necessary evil of the system for price stability, and would rather focus on ending poverty through a UBI and increasing individual freedom as much as reasonably possible, with freedom increasing worker bargaining power, allowing them to pressure employers for better working conditions and pay (but not too too much, as doing so could lead to runaway inflation). But yeah, my solution to the problem is to free people from work, and increase worker bargaining power, allowing them to enter and exit the work force as free agents.
Socialists instead believe in work. They think the answer is more akin to FDR with the new deal: a job guarantee. Where the government creates public works projects in fields like infrastructure to ensure everyone remains employed. In an age where work is increasingly unnecessary, I think this is stupid. I think freeing people from work should be a goal of society, while they think that everyone should be a worker and workers should own the means of production. So there are some deep ideological differences that manifest in what we call "leftist infighting." Just know my own ideas are a bit more "capitalist" than theirs, despite there being a lot of overlap most of the time, and this does manifest in tension between myself and this group over topics like JG vs UBI, or UBI vs "decommodifying" industries or having traditional welfare programs.
Anyway, would I support democratic socialists in practice? Well, when my choices are between some third way neolib and a democratic socialist, a socialist is gonna be closer to my views. While I do have niche views that make me differ from them on certain topics, we have a lot in common. We want better wages and working conditions from workers. We want universal healthcare, free college, cheaper and more accessible housing, some sort of green solution to climate change, etc. We might differ on policy details for how to get there at times, but once again, given a choice between them and a third wayer, I'll vote for them. At least they have solutions. And despite whatever ideological infighting I engage in with them, most of them work. And most of them don't go too far where what they propose is beyond the pale for me in terms of advancing socialism. Again, most of them are just edgy social democrats in practice. They talk a big game about socialism but they have more in common with new deal liberals or European social democrats. Ya know? They're not a threat to society. Most of them want people to have good things, and the only people who should hate them are the wealthy. And quite frankly the wealthy probably hate me too. Like..you gotta understand that, even though i differ in solutions from demsocs sometimes, my ideas are almost as radical in terms of taxing the rich and redistributing wealth. We just differ in what's the best way to do it, and to administer aid. And, again, despite the weird MOP obsession, most of them are inert enough to have no real plans to abolish capitalism. They literally have no plans to do so for the most part. Doing so would require a continuous multi decade effort and the public would get tired of them before they succeed, and their attempts would be undone. So again, relatively inert.
So yeah, dont fear democratic socialists. They're not gonna turn us into russia any time soon. Maybe scandinavia, but probably not soviet russia. And if they propose soviet ideas like collectivizing farms, well, vote them out of office before they can do that kinda crap. But seriously, virtually none of them wanna do that crap. They just want universal healthcare and higher wages basically. Maybe a green new deal.
