So....let's face it. We have an ignorance problem with socialism and far left wing ideologies in the United States. I grew up ignorant, and even though I've become more informed on the subject over time, I still experience many many people still using the same old BS talking points I used to spew in my conservative days. That being said, I'd like to spend a few minutes to dig into socialism as a concept. I've done it before briefly, but I feel like I should have a more informational article on the subject. Anyway, without further ado, let's get to it.
What is socialism?
Definitions can vary, but I would define it for the purposes of this article as the workers or the community owning the means of production, rather than private individuals.
Is all socialism the same?
NO. This is a common misconception I get when dealing with right wingers all the time. There are MANY, MANY forms of socialism. Many people like to act like Soviet style communism is the only form, and that all variations inevitably lead to the same result, but this is fundamentally untrue.
What the USSR and other communist countries did was have these revolutionary, centralized, authoritarian economies combined with totalitarianism. This led to the horrors and inefficiencies we saw under USSR, Cuba, North Korea, etc. But not all forms of socialism are like that.
Instead of revolutionary forms of socialism that involve overthrowing the existing system, you can have reformist approaches that tend to work within the framework of countries that already exist, and are often much more supporting of democratic, incremental approaches in the direction of socialism.
Instead of centralized systems, you can have decentralized ones, even market oriented ones. You can have industry controlled by a local government rather than a national one, or even by the workers themselves. Decentralized forms generally avoid the problems found in centralized forms.
Instead of authoritarian systems, you can have democratic or libertarian ones. Heck, these are arguably more in the spirit of socialism than the authoritarian ones, because socialism is supposed to be liberating and about ideals like freedom and democracy. It doesn't have to be linked with tyranny and oppression.
Is Bernie Sanders a socialist?
He calls himself a democratic socialist, but he seems to have plans to govern much like a social democrat. Social democracy and democratic socialism are very similar, as evidenced by the wikipedia article posted above, and sometimes the real difference comes down to one's ideology. Are they simply trying to fix capitalism? Or are they trying to turn the country into something more socialistic? Ideologically there can be different emphases between the two ideology, but in terms of governance, they are likely very similar or identical. Maybe in his heart his long term goals are to bring about socialism, but if he were president, he likely wouldn't be able to accomplish such a thing and would be left with advocating for social democratic solutions, leaving these ideas to possibly be taken up in the future. The same thing applies to European "socialist" parties and "socialist" Scandinavian countries. They're much more social democratic than anything.
Going by the distinctions I discussed above, Sanders is a reformist, not a revolutionary. And he's far more democratic/libertarian than authoritarian. His form of socialism would not lead to communism as we fear it. So right wingers, you can put your torches and pitchforks down.
Are democrats socialists?
Most democrats are not socialist at all. The party line does not advocate for socialism at all. They're moderate capitalists. Most at this point, considering the dominance of the Clinton wing of the party are not even social democrats. They're basically republican lites. They're supporters of capitalism and the private ownership of the means of production, and at best advocate for a very light version of welfare capitalism.
So once again, right wingers, you can put your torches and pitchforks down. No, Obama is not a socialist, no, Clinton is not a socialist. Not even close. Capitalists should actually be very happy with the democratic party, since they promote a much more responsible form of capitalism than the republicans do.
Are you (am I) a socialist?
Eh, I'm on the fence. I definitely have a strong democratic view of the economy, but as far as socialism goes, I'm leery of it. I think much more research would need to be done into the concept before we even think of implementing it. I'm open minded to, and at the very least ideologically supportive of what's known as "market socialism", which would basically combine a market system with democratic business enterprises known as worker coops, but I have no idea how this could be realistically implemented in practice and once again believe more research needs to be done.
Honestly, I'm both a capitalist and a socialist and kind of waffle in the middle ground between the two. I support "capitalism", but by that, I don't necessarily mean private ownership of the means or production. What I'm really talking about there is that I support MARKETS as opposed to centralized or command economies for MOST industries (some are better off socialized, like healthcare and roads). And if we can achieve some form of decentralized democratic socialism combined with a market based system and a healthy dose of welfare capitalism to offset the issues inherent in markets, I'm okay with that.
But ultimately, the ownership of the means of production is not my main concern. Peoples' well being is. While market socialism is ideologically attractive to me, as I've written about before, I don't see it as an end all or a primary goal. It would solve some problems, but I don't think it will magically solve every social ill like socialists think it would, and I do think right now we are better off focusing on safety nets, unions, regulations, and an adversarial relationship between labor and capital. Maybe in the long term (democratic socialism's reformist approach) some sort of transition to socialism would be viable and preferable, but it's not my big concern right now, and believe we should cross that bridge when we get to it, and when there is actual demand from the people for it (right now I don't think there is any). As such, my views are similar to the Sanders approach. I support social democratic solutions, possibly with a long term goal of socialism, but even then, I really don't care if we ever really get there. If social democracy works and there's no need to make a transition, whatever. I could be happy either way. It really depends how things work out.
This is why I consider myself more of a social democrat with socialist leanings. My overall policies are much more strongly on the social democratic side, and while I have some ideological sympathies for the idea of a decentralized, libertarian, reformist form of market socialism, I really don't see it as a major goal until the people actually want it, and until we actually have a clear way to transition without running into problems. You can support ideas on paper all day but if you have no plans to get from A to B, what good are they? And this is my core problem with socialism. On paper it sounds great, but looking into getting there, it's like, how would we even do this? Social democratic solutions are just more easy to accomplish and would likely have just as large of a positive impact on peoples' lives.
Was Hitler a socialist?
Some people claim Hitler was a socialist because Nazis were "national socialists", but Hitler was pretty hostile toward socialists overall.
Oh I get it, you just think your magical version of socialism that has never been tried will somehow turn out differently than anyone else's!
First of all, many forms of socialism actually are theoretical and haven't been tried, and as I just said, most forms of socialism have tangible differences between the specific subset that is infamous in the world. So this isn't really a no true scotsman fallacy or whatever.
Conclusion: Put your torches and pitchforks down
Anyway who is concerned about the United States turning into an authoritarian communist nation can rest assured that this will not happen. Anyone who fears the left in the United States as destroying the country economically and taking away our freedoms needs to cool their crap. Anyone who thinks that all socialism is the same and any socialist, or, heck, anyone to the left of the country is going to lead to the problems seen in Venezuela and Russia and Cuba and North Korea needs to educate themselves.
Not all socialism is bad, and most groups in the US with relatively left wing leanings are not socialist or at best are on the borderline. The problems that happened overseas come from a very specific group of socialist ideas that are authoritarian, revolutionary, and centralized, whereas most "socialists" in the US are reformists at best, much more libertarian and democratic, and push for decentralized socialism. Even outwardly socialist groups tend to prefer libertarian, decentralized, democratic socialism and not the crap done by other countries. Comparing all socialists to Russia is like comparing all capitalists to Nazi Germany, it just isn't true. And finally, many so called "socialists" and "socialist" ideas aren't actually socialist at all. Redistribution of wealth is NOT socialist, for example, but an example of social democracy or welfare capitalism.
That being said, right wingers, put your torches and pitchforks down, you're embarrassing yourselves. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and try to evolve your understanding of things beyond Cold War propaganda, which is a bunch of massive strawmen intended to ideologically indoctrinate you. Yes, some forms of socialism is bad, just like some forms of capitalism (like fascism and hardcore libertarianism) are bad. But not all ideas should be written off by thinking of their furthest ideological extremes. Capitalism has merits, socialism has merits. It's up to us to find the right mix of the two, with the right emphases on the right things in the right places.
No comments:
Post a Comment