With Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist, not to mention calling for a “revolution,” and Bill Gates saying socialism may be the only salvation against climate change, something is certainly happening – but what?
Socialism is a confused label. First it meant an economic system with no private owners of means of production. It was an end point. This socialism had to have state or collective ownership of workplaces. No Gates, no Walton, no moneybags.
Next, some adherents changed their tune so socialism meant tumultuous events of modest duration wherein productive property was taken from its former owners – a process.
Then for others, socialism morphed further to mean a much longer and not tumultuous process during which capitalism would be increasingly restrained, regulated, and even abated, leaving more state and collective production than capitalist production.
Alongside, in the mainstream, socialism meant government expansion and finally government domination, a gulag. This definition sought to make socialism a nonstarter.
At the fringes, there have also been various strains of anti-authoritarian socialism, sometimes anarchism, sometimes a councilist approach.
Now comes a twist that seeks to eliminate all the other meanings as well as confusion and rejection. Sanders’ Socialism seems to mean only restricting the most egregious capitalist excesses by pursuing enlarged government protections against market madness, but with no greater goal.
Why not just join up? Times change. Words should change too. Eliminating the gulag connotations and associated scare tactics, will, if it happens, certainly be a good thing. But why are even some plutocrats getting soft on socialism?
Perhaps plutocrats are awakening to the realization that capitalism without major restraints will destroy the planet. This is Bill Gates. It is also Hillary Clinton when she says we need to save capitalism from itself. Is it Tsipris, Sanders, Corbyn, some leaders in the South? I hope not. I hope they are better.
For Gates and Clinton who want to salvage their domination but without annihilating all life, there is need to reverse the market madness trends of recent decades. Some plutocrats even realize that that means “socialism,” at least in the social democratic variant. So, a shift is occurring.
However, If those who want a new world that eliminates all systemic injustice get on board in claiming that a new world means just government mitigation of capitalism’s self threatening faults, then no one will be seeking a truly new world.
Would a shift in policies to avoid flooding New York and Miami or impoverishing all but a few to starvation be good? Yes, of course. Less climate calamity is better than more. Less poverty is better than more.
Would such gains be permanent? No. If we leave the underlying structures of the current economy in place they will relentlessly regenerate pressures for the worst excesses.
With only government alleviation of some economic horrors not only wouldn’t the deeper and more ubiquitous economic horrors of today not be overcome, but the pressures generating ecological nightmares and continually escalated inequality and other runaway “excesses” on top of untouched horrific business as usual will persist and, in time, when they reverse temporary policies called “socialist,” become preponderant again
Does this mean “socialist” short run policy choices should be opposed? No, it means they will be unstable and far from sufficient. The ultimate merit of admirable short run policies depends on whether they lead to more permanent gains later.
And now comes a strange bedfellows dynamic.
A capitalist with zero intention of eliminating his or her dominant position can nonetheless support highly contested policies called “socialist” to ward off ecological armageddon, polarized populations forced to rebel, and so on. Moneybags may seek to mitigate suicidal excesses of the system to save the system.
At the same time, a poor person can support the same policies to ward off disastrous immediate outcomes, but with the difference, hopefully, of steadily becoming ever more clear that there is a larger aim that needs to be continually conceived, celebrated, and sought.
As we support and seek short run changes that elites sometimes also favor, to avoid losing our aspirations in their system preserving priorities, we have to inject into each discussion about income distribution, modes of allocation, methods of decision making, job definitions, education, health care, family policies, immigration, war and peace, or ecological survival evidence that favored short run policies have an underlying implicit direction which must be emphasized, leading to much larger gains and new relations, later.
In that context, surprisingly, Sanders isn’t just calling himself a democratic socialist – unexpectedly enough – he is also saying, over and over, that a better future can’t be had without millions upon millions of people knowledgeably participating in political activism to push for changes they desire. He doesn’t spell out how that happens, or what changes beyond the short run policies he favors it would seek. But, he does say that working people should determine the future, not elites. And isn’t that precisely what a person serious about fundamental change, ought to be saying, and what we who have those same aspirations should be seconding, adding substance to, and working to make happen, whether Sanders stays the course or not?
It is hard to see how a presidential candidate could use a massive stage in the U.S., right now, in the world that we have, to help open the door to a better future more effectively, and while maintaining a huge audience, than Sanders seems to be doing. Maybe one could, while retaining sufficient access to keep at it. Maybe not. But what matters is not that, unless someone else is literally in position to do better – but what those who do understand the ills of contemporary society make of the opportunity Sanders is generating to pose a real and full alternative and to work to bring it into being. To fold our tents into a part way mentality as if part way is all the way – or to endlessly castigate a part way mentality (that may be tactical or truly limited where we don’t know which), will accomplish nothing much positive, and perhaps even be counterproductive. On the other hand, to pose positive alternatives, in plain language, and to construct lasting organizational vehicles for their espousal and for pushing short run gains into ever larger gains within and beyond Sander’s own efforts, whether he is elected or not, has real potential of a sort not seen in the U.S. for decades.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
14 Comments
What is happening is an effort to separate collectivist ideology from the welfare state. The right to food is not the right to be fed. The right to shelter is not the right to be sheltered. You get the idea. Simply stated, an individual “right” cannot place an obligation upon another. The Compact of the Forest didn’t entitle anyone to firewood delivery service. To all you life-long lefties, I salute you. Your moment is at hand.
You make a good point Michael. Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky are saying the same thing: a better future can’t be had without people organizing and knowledgeably participating in political activism to push for change. And I tend to agree, that given the reality of the corporate media driven political system, it is hard to see what more Sanders could do, except perhaps to start a conversation around the connect between terrorism and our military adventures in the Middle East, another form of terrorism. Unfortunately, as yet he is not gone there.
Hi John, I agree, and a m a bit befuddled by it. That is, lots of left writers just more or less assume that Sanders is imperial light. It just seems unlikely to me – someone saying all that he says, being weak, even really bad, on the one thing that is far and away most obvious given his age, all he has, seen, etc. etc. So I assume that he believes – or his handlers believe, that taking a strong stand on war and peace, international relations, etc. etc. is somehow, for some reason, such a bad idea that he has to hold off on that. But I wonder, why? Is it really the case that the media and pundits and so on can rally the population against you for being insightful and honest about war and such, easier than they can for talking about a revoltion and calling yourself socialist? In other words I find both simple explanations – it is a tactic to avoid being annihilated, or it is his real inclination, hard to fathom…which leaves – nothing…
I don’t get it either. There are too many examples now of the blowback that results from US imperial ambitions and too many people, enough anyway, who have made the connection between terrorism and US foreign policy for the media and pundits to turn a large portion of the population against Sanders if he were to bring it up. After all, who is it that generally suffers the immediate horrors of terrorism; not elites. So why doesn’t he?
This is where the social revolution he is calling for comes into play. Have they made the demand that Sanders addressing this issue? Or have they already, with Sanders and his handlers sidestepping it? I don’t know but it is an issue that transcends the US and any one candidates for president. It is a global phenomena that separates the West’s elites from its people, alone with the rest of the world.
So other than talking about the need for people to become active, how much encouragement does Sanders and his political organization provide to those who support him and who want to become more politically active by organizing and making such demands? This is an advantage Sanders has over Chomsky, he has a political organization. He needs to use it.
The important difference between Sanders and all the other contenders is great. Look at the Hitlerian Trump! I agree with Michael’s thinking here. However, I can’t get around his abandonment of Palestinians. That’s me. Mind you, I am Canadian. I was faced, though, with the same predicament here this past October. Our social democratic NDP has become neoliberal, like your Democratic Party. Worse, Mulcair praises Margaret Thatcher while he is vicious with any in the Party who express sympathy with them. But, unlike (awesome) activists like Albert and Chomsky, I don’t believe we have no choice but to jettison principles at times. I don’t believe in humankind/God. I don’t lack faith – in the real God and his plan of salvation for imperfect humankind.
Let;s set aside the religious basis – on Palestine too I find it hard to understand but less so than on war and peace generally – but otherwise similar to my response to John. I would like to see him take on issues he is avoiding, assuming he can make headway there like he has elsewhere – but what if he can’t. Then what should he do? I think it is really not so obvious, sad as that may be…
One important area where Bernie could make a lasting difference is around the concept of markets. If he is willing to go after, that is make coherent arguments, about the fallibility of markets, a key tenet of neoliberal ideology, then he can begin some critical cultural shifts. And force elites into some difficult decisions.
If he is willing, and talented enough, to explain climate change as market failure ( in “plain language”), to make Hillary debate the issue, he can introduce socialism as a liberating, democratizing counter-force to the tyranny of the market. When Obama took office in the middle of the crash he stated clearly ; “I’m a market kind of guy”
Bernie can say: I’m a planning sort of guy.We’ll see what he says in his interview with NPR tomorrow.
Here I think I would probably disagree – and I am a market abolitionist – and I go so far as to say I think at some point in the future when a full accounting is possible, it will turn out markets may well be the worst single human creation…yet – in the context where Sanders operates I don’t think he could make lasting headway on this, now, and it is not on the agenda now, in any event, so I think I don’t mind that he isn’t addressing it and am not even sure it would be a plus if he did. This sets aside where he stands on these matters- and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he thinks markets are fine, just horribly used nowadays – wrong – but lots of folks more socialist than Bernie think that.
First we had neocon, then neoliberal, followed by neofascist. Now it looks like we need a few more neos – neo-socialism, neo-democracy, neo-equality, neo-justice and neo-freedom for starters. Like so many words, used in the political hustle, these connotative loaded words can mean many things to many people. Their primary use being to push people’s buttons rather than inform or promote rational discussion. Neoliberalism is a good example of how politicians use words to hustle people, primarily voters. Neoliberalism uses the terminology of classic liberalism, like freedom and democracy, to promote a corporate capitalist, right-wing, patriarchal agenda. In the sham that American politics has become, words like “socialism” and “democracy” becomes so twisted that they end up that the defining characteristics of their meaning is changed, often into their opposite. Obviously the media plays a large part, but main-stream politicians like Bernie play their part. When I hear words like “socialism and democracy” bandied about in the presidential campaigns, their connotation, use and meaning are not at all what I understand them to be. It’s like when I hear people say Bernie is building a Left movement in the U.S. to promote social democracy, I can only shake my head and think “WTF” – would that be the neo-Left!
Ed, Language is a terrain of struggle, so I say figure out which meanings you are willing to defend. Many ecxcellent left thinkers find the word neoliberalism to have explanatory power, that is, to describe a real trend in the sphere of political-economy. Yes, distinctions between social democracy and democratic socialism are being distorted, so fight for the meaning which best pushes a radical agenda?
The real terrain of struggle is society not the meaning for individuals. And, that is the problem. Individuals are using the words to advance their personal agenda at the expense of society. Like FDR, Bernie is just trying to stave off a real revolution and maintain the capitalist, patriarchal hierarchy.
Ed, how do you, and others – you are far from alone in this – arrive at such a strong impression?
Suppose he is sincerely moving left – does it make sense to say since he isn’t where you want him, he is just another horrible system defender? He takes positions not too unlike those that the most progressive activists take, on a host of issues, and since he doesn’t go further or espouse long run goals we can fully celebrate, we don’t just say that, we say he is trying to save injustice? I wonder, who do you think hears that and learns something useful?
Suppose Chomsky was running for President right now, or me or pick whoever you prefer from the whole world. I am not saying Sanders agrees with Chomsky, or me, or who you pick, on everything, of course not. Take me, he is most likely not in favor of parecon, say – though, honestly, how do we even know that for sure? I haven’t had a chat with him, have you?
All we know with real confidence is what we see him saying n the midst of a campaign, plus, arguably, what we can discern by where he gets his support, particularly finances, who he hires, and so on, now and in the past while in office, running for office, etc. etc. It strikes me as very strange that all leftists take for granted that every candidate far from their views is saying things constrained by and molded by their approach to gaining in the election – and not saying everything they think. So why isn’t that be true, for Sanders?
Sadly, there is no “real revolution” imminent, so say the least. In fact, the closest dynamic to what might in time become that, that I can see, right now, in the U.S., again sadly – since it is so far short – is the Sanders process coupled to various rather disjoint activist undertakings.
That does represent some real progress as compared to earlier, and yet so many lefties can’t seem to help but say, that it is less than I want, which is perfectly reasonable and no doubt accurate, so it must be meant to bolster what I hate, which is not reasonable. Seriously, meant to do that?
What if you had dinner with Sanders, tomorrow, and in a calm exchange he told you, with clear understanding, that he happened to think x, y, and z, which you feel are crucial and desirable, but he added that they have nothing to do with making progress in the realm available to him so he doesn’t talk about them – would you say, Bernie, you are lying, you don’t favor x, y, and z, you favor capitalistic patriarchal hierarchy?
Like i said, the terrain of struggle is not individuals but society. I think that Bernie is a good, sincere, well intentioned person, who like so many others is caught up in a very bad system. He perpetrates the mistaken belief that if we can just elect a few good men, we can reform the cancerous growth economic system and neofascist State. The real question is not changing the representative democracy leadership but in creating a new system of self-governance based on direct democracy. You may believe that Bernie is a small step in that direction – I don’t. In fact, I feel that Bernie, like FDR, is helping to protect and maintain the status quo.
P.S. On a personal level, I don’t like Bernie because of his support for Zionism and U.S. militarism, imperialism and exceptionalism at the expense of all other people and the planetary life-support systems.
Why?
That is, let’s say I think a good economy is – participatory planning, balanced job complexes, self managed workers and consumers councils, and equitable remuneration for duartion, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued labor – as I do.
Now, should I fight to make everyone in the world agree that socialism means that? So I can say without any pause I favor socialism?
I am not sure I see the point. The word has meant what I call coordinatorism – what existed, say, in the SU, etc. for a long time, in the West, thought contested, of course, by many. Now along comes Sanders and somehow he manages to change it so socialism means humane government intervention in the economy…in other words it is a name for desirable policies. Well, that is good, because now the word can’t as easily be used to bludgeon and dismiss. A step forward.
But now what, we say, well, hey, everyone is wrong – you can’t use the word the way they once did, or they now do, you can only use it my way…Really?
Why not just fight for the actual meaning and to avoid semantic nonsense give it a name that, well, can only be associated with that actual meaning?