the dirty word
WHAT DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM IS . . . AND
WHAT IT IS NOT
by
LAWRENCE WITTNER
_______________________________________________________
Dr.
Lawrence Wittner (http://www.lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor
of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting
the Bomb (Stanford University Press).
Donald
Trump and other Republicans have begun to tar their Democratic
opponents with the ‘socialist’ brush, contending that
the adoption of socialist policies will transform the United States
into a land of dictatorship and poverty. In fact, though, like
many of Trump’s other claims, there’s no reason to
believe it.
The ideal
of socialism goes back deep into human history and, at its core,
is based on the notion that wealth should be shared more equitably
between the rich and the poor. Numerous major religions have emphasized
this point, criticizing greed and preaching the necessity for
“all God’s children” to share in the world’s
abundance. The goal of increased economic equality has also mobilized
numerous social movements and rebellions.
But how
was this sharing of wealth to be achieved? Religious leaders often
emphasized charity. Social movements developed communitarian living
experiments. Revolutions seized the property of the rich and redistributed
it. And governments began to set aside portions of the economy
to enhance the welfare of the public, rather than the profits
of the wealthy few.
In the
United States, governments created a public sector alongside private
enterprise. The American Constitution, drafted by the Founding
Fathers, provided for the establishment of a U.S. postal service,
which quickly took root in American life. Other public enterprises
followed, including publicly-owned and operated lands, roads,
bridges, canals, ports, schools, police forces, water departments,
fire departments, mass transit systems, sewers, sanitation services,
dams, libraries, parks, hospitals, food and nutrition services,
and colleges and universities. Although many of these operated
on a local level, others were nationwide in scope and became very
substantial enterprises, including Social Security, Medicare,
National Public Radio, the National Institutes of Health, and
the U.S. armed forces. In short, over the centuries the United
States has developed what is often termed ‘a mixed economy,’
as have many other countries.
Nations
also found additional ways to socialize (or share) the wealth.
These included facilitating the organization of unions and cooperatives,
as well as establishing a minimum wage, unemployment insurance,
and a progressive tax policy -- one with the highest levies on
the wealthy and their corporations.
Over
the course of U.S. history, these policies, sometimes termed ‘social
democracy,’ have enriched the lives of most Americans and
have certainly not led to dictatorship and economic collapse.
They are also the kind championed by Bernie Sanders and other
democratic socialists.
Why, then, does a significant portion of the American population
view socialism as a dirty word?
One reason
is that many (though not all) of the wealthy fiercely object to
sharing their wealth and possess the vast financial resources
that enable them to manipulate public opinion and pull American
politics rightward. After all, they own the corporate television
and radio networks, control most of the major newspapers, dominate
the governing boards of major institutions, and can easily afford
to launch vast public relations campaigns to support their economic
interests. In addition, as the largest source of campaign funding
in the United States, the wealthy have disproportionate power
in politics. So it’s only natural that their values are
over-represented in public opinion and in election results.
But there’s
another major reason that socialism has acquired a bad name: the
policies of Communist governments. In the late 19th and early
20th centuries, socialist parties were making major gains in economically
advanced nations. This included the United States, where the Socialist
Party of America, between 1904 and 1920, elected socialists to
office in 353 towns and cities, and governed major urban centers
such as Milwaukee and Minneapolis. But, in Czarist Russia, an
economically backward country suffering under a harsh dictatorship,
one wing of the small, underground socialist movement, the Bolsheviks,
used the chaos and demoralization caused by Russia’s disastrous
participation in World War I to seize power. Given their utter
lack of democratic experience, the Bolsheviks (who soon called
themselves Communists) repressed their rivals (including democratic
socialists) and established a one-party dictatorship. They also
created a worldwide body, the Communist International, to compete
with the established socialist movement, which they denounced
fiercely for its insistence on democratic norms and civil liberties.
In the
following decades, the Communists, championing their model of
authoritarian socialism, made a terrible mess of it in the new
Soviet Union, as well as in most other lands where they seized
power or, in Eastern Europe, took command thanks to post-World
War II occupation by the Red Army. Establishing brutal dictatorships
with stagnating economies, these Communist regimes alienated their
populations and drew worldwide opprobrium. In China, to be sure,
the economy has boomed in recent decades, but at the cost of supplementing
political dictatorship with the heightened economic inequality
accompanying corporate-style capitalism.
By contrast, the democratic socialists -- those denounced and
spurned by the Communists -- did a remarkably good job of governing
their countries. In the advanced industrial democracies, where
they were elected to office on numerous occasions and defeated
on others, they fostered greater economic and social equality,
substantial economic growth and political freedom.
Their impact was particularly impressive in the Scandinavian nations.
For example, about a quarter of Sweden’s vibrant economy
is publicly-owned. In addition, Sweden has free undergraduate
college/university tuition, monthly stipends to undergraduate
students, free postgraduate education (e.g. medical and law school),
free medical care until age 20 and nearly free medical care thereafter,
paid sick leave, 480 days of paid leave when a child is born or
adopted, and nearly free day-care and preschool programs.
Furthermore,
Sweden has 70 percent union membership, high wages, four to seven
weeks of vacation a year, and an 82-year life expectancy. It can
also boast the ninth most competitive economy in the world. Democratic
socialism has produced similar results in Norway and Denmark.
Of course,
democratic socialism might not be what you want. But let’s
not pretend that it’s something that it’s not.
