And a word (or two) about "socialism" . . .
Peeps, and now a word or two about "socialism." I have just posted on "communism," a term that can be pretty succinctly defined. Unfortunately, "socialism" cannot and this plays into the political right's efforts to denigrate everything "communist, socialist, Marxist" as basically the same, bad, pro-government agenda. Although Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders brought the word "socialism" into current political discourse in the US, most on the left would prefer that we just stop using this word. That has meant that the terms "socialism" and "communism" have been primarily used on the right to denigrate any pro-government program as inherently suspect.
The right project is helped by the fact that the term "socialism" is very hard to define. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels did not help matters much by using "socialism" and "communism" basically interchangeably in the Communist Manifesto, much as the US right does today. Oops!
But the fact is that there are basically two types of "socialism" that have actually been practiced in the world: what I call "communism" (or "state socialism") and "social democracy."
Communism conquered Russia, Eastern Europe, and much of Asia in the 20th century and then spectacularly flamed out. (I teach a course on Communism at Penn and hope to put it online someday).
Meanwhile, as Sheri Berman showed in a spectacular book and article(s), social democracy has basically triumphed in the capitalist world since 1945. Most capitalist governments, including that of the US, but most particularly in Europe, became "welfare states," meaning the majority of their expenditures were on social programs, not the military. They still are today.
Social democracy grew out of a branch of Marxism that REJECTED violent revolution (key point). And believed that a lot of the goals of creating a fairer society could be enacted without overthrowing capitalism, but rather through democratic means, through the ballot box, and through cross-class coalitions rather than conflict. That proved to be true. Today, ALL successful capitalist economies (yes, even Singapore) are PARTLY social democratic or "socialist." The US is far from the most extensive welfare state, but in the US we have: a. universal healthcare (for over-65s), b. universal old-age insurance (social security), and many other programs to support the poor. Ironically, these have not supplanted capitalism, but won support for CAPITALISM. And indeed, many welfare state institutions have been started by right-wing capitalists (such as Otto von Bismarck) for that purpose.
In essence, CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM co-exist in most developed countries. In a way, they are symbiotic. I would point out that, in the current COVID crisis, both Republicans and Democrats have supported universal income support to those below a certain income threshold to make it through the crisis, a basically socialist policy. In the US, the debate is often framed as "capitalism" versus "socialism," but the reality is that both are widely accepted in practice and the real debate is about moving a little more in the capitalist or a little more in the socialist direction.
The Debate About “Socialism” on the Left
But the left has a rhetorical problem with the term “socialism,” that is coming home to roost today. The US has introduced a lot of socialist policies, but never called them "socialism" or even "social democracy," due to a legacy of anti-communism. Whatever euphemisms one uses, these policies are, in fact, socialist and when Republicans like Rand Paul call them out for being socialist, they are basically right. And yet, few on the center-left or left are prepared to defend a term that accurately describes these policies.
So, some say, let's just stick with tradition and argue for more of these policies without using these labels.
However, others, more to the left, say, wait a minute, why not just give "socialism" a better name? And there is a strong logic in this approach too. Public opinion polls show that the younger generation in the US has a MUCH more favorable opinion of socialism than prior generations (see PEW polls). 50 percent of 18-29 year olds have a positive impression of "socialism" as well as 47 percent of 30-49 year olds. So, why run away from these terms? Why cede this ground to the political right?
Again, here in our debates with other Americans, I think it is important to debate definitions. Social democracy should NOT be scary to our fellow citizens because it does NOT call for the violent overthrow of capitalism. It does NOT call for restricting rights and freedoms, but for expanding them. Furthermore, it ALREADY exists to a large extent in the US. The US is already, to a degree, a social democratic country. If you doubt this, just check the Federal budget and see what proportion of funds we spend on social programs versus the military. Social democracy, in contrast to communism, just means achieving fairness step by step through the ballot box. It means following the will of the majority. But it also means speaking honestly and clearly about what we believe.
Just so people know what I believe, very clearly, I am among the 25 percent of Americans (according to Pew) that has a positive view of both capitalism and socialism, the second largest group. I believe that neither of these systems works very well separately, but both work remarkably well together. Go figure!
And stuff the purists!
Capitalism and Socialism are Complementary
One last thought: you might be wondering, how or why would ideologically opposed social systems work well together? I have often thought of a way of explaining this, and the simplest metaphor has to do with machines. Take a car, for example. Cars have two basic systems, operated by two pedals: one for going and one for stopping. We often think of a car as defined by the gas pedal. We call it a motor vehicle. But it is equally defined by the brake. Thought experiment: how fast would a car go without a brake? Answer: not very fast, probably only a few miles per hour, since everyone would be afraid of crashing into everyone else. It is the brake, as much as the accelerator, which allows us to drive 75 mph.
In fact, when you think about it, many many engineering systems that we use in our daily lives consist of opposed systems. For instance, the furnace that heats our house has a gas burner. It also has a number of fail safes that stop the gas burner, to avoid the house burning down. That, in a nutshell, is why opposed social systems work well together. To prevent capitalism burning the house down.