ISSN 2330-717X

Who’s Afraid Of ‘Socialism’? – OpEd

By

For decades, Republicans have painted anyone left of Barry Goldwater as a “socialist.” Why? Because for a generation raised on the Cold War, “socialist” just seemed like a damaging label. 

And, probably, it was. 

You can tell, because many liberal-leaning figures internalized that fear. When Donald Trump vowed that “America will never be a socialist country,” for instance, no less than Senator Elizabeth Warren stood and applauded

But while older Americans retain some antipathy toward the word, folks raised in the age of “late capitalism” don’t. In Gallup polls, more millennial and Gen-Z respondents say they view “socialism” positively with each passing year, while their opinion of “capitalism” tumbles ever downward.

As a result, it’s not all that surprising that self-described democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders tops Trump in most head to head polls — and just scooped up popular vote victories in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.

Still, old propaganda dies hard. What else could explain the panicky musings of Chis Matthews, the liberal-ish MSNBC host, who recently wondered aloud if a Sanders victory would mean “executions in Central Park”? 

Nevermind that Sanders is a longtime opponent of all executions, as any news host could surely look up. The real issue is a prejudice, particularly among Americans reared on fears of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, that “socialism” implies dictatorship, while “capitalism” presumes democracy.

Their Cold War education serves them poorly.

Yes, it’s easy to name calamitous dictatorships, living and deceased, that proclaim socialist or communist commitments. But it’s just as easy to point to Europe, where democratic socialist parties and their descendants have been mainstream players in democratic politics for a century or longer.

The health care, welfare, and tax systems built by those parties have created societies with far greater equalityhigher social mobility, and better health outcomes (at lower cost) than we enjoy here. These systems aren’t perfect, but to a significant degree they’re more democratic than our own.

But we don’t have to look abroad (or to Vermont) for a rich social democratic history.

Milwaukee mayor Daniel Hoan — one of several socialists to govern the city — served for 24 years, and built the country’s first public busing and housing programs. And ruby-red North Dakota is, even now, the only state in the country with a state-owned bank, thanks to a socialist-led government in the early 20th century. Today, dozens of elected socialists hold office at the state or municipal levels.

While plenty of socialists embraced democracy, plenty of capitalists turned to dictatorship.

In the name of fighting socialism during the Cold War, the U.S. trained and supported members of right-wing death squads in El Salvadorgenocidal army units in Guatemala, and a Chilean military regime that disappeared or tortured tens of thousands of people while enacting “pro-market reforms.” 

Only last year, the U.S. government was cheering a military coup against an elected socialist government in Bolivia. And in 2018, the Wall Street Journal praised far-right Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro, an apologist for the country’s old military regime, for his deregulation of business.

Even here at home, our capitalist “freedoms” have coexisted peacefully with racial apartheid, the world’s largest prison system, and the mass internment of immigrants and their children.

Sanders has been clear his socialist tradition comes from the social democratic systems common in countries like Denmark, with their provisions for universal health care and free college. 

Should Matthews next wonder aloud if candidates who oppose Medicare for All or free college also support death squads, genocide, mass incarceration, or internment camps? If that sounds unfair, then so should the lazy fear mongering we get about “socialism.”

The sobering truth is that all political systems are capable of either great violence or social uplift. That’s why we need resilient social movements, whatever system we use — and why we’re poorly served by propaganda from any corner.

Peter Certo

Peter Certo

Peter Certo is the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. and writer based at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, where he edits the institute’s Foreign Policy In Focus website and serves as deputy editor of the non-profit editorial syndicate OtherWords. He’s a former associate editor of Right Web, a project that monitors the efforts of foreign policy hawks and neoconservatives to influence U.S. foreign policy, and he helped coordinate the first annual Global Day of Action on Military Spending.

One thought on “Who’s Afraid Of ‘Socialism’? – OpEd

  • Avatar
    February 14, 2020 at 12:35 pm
    Permalink

    The term socialism has been used in a very vague way in the USA. Socialism always means government intervention to provide social benefits such as health care, free education, basic income, pension, social security, reduction of loans, free schools and books, and the like. These social programs are supported by Senator Sanders, some politicians, and the American people.
    But the US propaganda, financed by big capital and corporations, comes to associate these social programs with killing, execution, and Stalin’s methods used in USSR. But the US propaganda has never talked about poverty, unemployment, reduction of healthcare and Medicare, reduction of food stamps and other helpful programs to the poor people, racism, the unfair prison system, the Apartheid, the free money to the financiers and the wealthy people by the Fed low interest rates and the government bailouts, massive wasteful money to militarism, the execution and killing, unending wars for looting resources of poor country for US corporations, war crimes, and the corruption of US imperialism on the world scale in order to destroy the social values of those poor nations for the benefits of the American wealthy capitalists. One can call these issues as Trump’s Socialism.
    It is also true that a look at the theory of socialism suggests simply that the provision of social programs is not socialism. Socialism requires social ownership of means of production through nationalization and the management of these means of production by the working people. Planning in all forms are used to eliminate all the negative effects of the market or to replace the market. Under socialism democracy and freedom will be for all from the working people to others. There is no way that freedom and democracy will be the exclusive rights of the wealthy. Rules of law will be applied and enforced against all without exception. Socialism also means the balanced growth and development of all economic sector with full priorities to the real production that will be affected by fictitious finance of the stock market.
    It follows that Senator Sander’s programs are intended to help the oppressed people by the power of the capitalists. This view is a fair social view for the American society but it is not socialism. Socialism is used against Senator Bernie’s campaign to destroy his chances to become the next president.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.