‘Yes, I’m Running as a Socialist.’ Why Candidates Are Embracing the Label in 2018

[Chris]

I've pointed out that standing against Trump, as so many who suffer TDS do, is not standing for something, and won't win votes.

Well, I think I found some new liberals stand for!

‘Yes, I’m Running as a Socialist.’ Why Candidates Are Embracing the Label in 2018 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/dsa-socialism-candidates-midterms.html)


...“Yes, I’m running as a socialist,” Mr. Bynum said. “I’m a far-left candidate. What I’m trying to do is be a Democrat who actually stands for something, and tells people, ‘Here’s how we are going to materially improve conditions in your life.’”

...Supporters, many of them millennials, say they are drawn by D.S.A.’s promise to combat income inequality, which they believe is tainting every facet of American life, from the criminal justice system to medical care to politics. They argue that capitalism has let them down, saddling them with student debt, high rent and uncertain job prospects. And they have been frustrated by the Democratic Party, which they say has lost touch with working people.

Of course it's nothing new, as the article points out:


Acceptance of socialism today still falls far short of its heyday in the 1910s and 1920s, when the Socialist Party of America had over 113,000 members and more than 1,000 elected officials, including two members of Congress, according to Jack Ross, author of “The Socialist Party of America: A Complete History.”

By the 1950s, socialism was widely seen as antithetical to the American way of life.

The "new" movement is addressed in You can’t argue against socialism’s 100 per cent record of failure (https://capx.co/you-cant-argue-against-socialisms-100-per-cent-record-of-failure/) argues:


Socialism is extremely in vogue. Opinion pieces which tell us to stop obsessing over socialism’s past failures, and start to get excited about its future potential, have almost become a genre in its own right.

For example, Bhaskhar Sunkara, the founder of Jacobin magazine, recently wrote a New York Times article, in which he claimed that the next attempt to build a socialist society will be completely different:

“This time, people get to vote. Well, debate and deliberate and then vote – and have faith that people can organise together to chart new destinations for humanity. Stripped down to its essence, and returned to its roots, socialism is an ideology of radical democracy. […] [I]t seeks to empower civil society to allow participation in the decisions that affect our lives.”

Nathan Robinson, the editor of Current Affairs, wrote in that magazine that socialism has not “failed”. It has just never been done properly...

...“Socialism without democracy […] isn’t socialism. […] Socialism means socialising wealth and power […].

It is, in fact, not new, but the same old same old, as the article argues:


Despite differences in style and emphasis, articles in this genre share a number of common flaws.

First, as much as the authors insist that previous examples of socialism were not “really” socialist, none of them can tell us what exactly they would do differently. Rather than providing at least a rough outline of how “their” version of socialism would work in practice, the authors escape into abstraction, and talk about lofty aspirations rather than tangible institutional characteristics.

...Secondly, the authors do not seem to realise that there is nothing remotely new about the lofty aspirations they talk about, and the buzzphrases they use. Giving “the people” democratic control over economic life has always been the aspiration, and the promise, of socialism. It is not that this has never occurred to the people who were involved in earlier socialist projects. On the contrary: that was always the idea. There was never a time when socialists started out with the express intention of creating stratified societies led by a technocratic elite. Socialism always turned out that way, but not because it was intended to be that way.

...Thirdly, contemporary socialists completely fail to address the deficiencies of socialism in the economic sphere. They talk a lot about how their version of socialism would be democratic, participatory, non-authoritarian, nice and cuddly. Suppose they could prove Hayek [sic, Mises] wrong, and magically make that work. What then?

[jigglepete]

Because it worked out so well for Bernie...

[Tahuyaman]

So called mainstream liberals and Democrats are getting more extreme all the time. I have no issue with that. Let them go as far out there as they want to.


They are showing that they represent the far left fringe of American society.

[texan]

Because it worked out so well for Bernie...
Let’s be honest. Bernie was screwed by the dem party and Barrack Obama. Obama as the head of the Dems cut a deal with Hillary and made sure she was nominated. Crooked as hell but that’s what they did.

Not sure if Bernie the socialist could win. But offering free college he may have gotten the youth back out and offset Trumps swing of Dems. However, I am not so sure more Dems would have voted against Bernie. We are not socialists. But we allow their opinions.

[MMC]

Just more failure of the left. But it is good seeing that both Socialists and Communists will tie themselves to the Demo Party. Quite the fitting reward for Demos and their cult following.


Which the Repubs should use that with the coming Mid Terms.

[Mister D]

What is a "radical democracy"?

[MMC]

What is a "radical democracy"?

State, Cities, and a National Government ran by Democrats. :grin:

[Tahuyaman]

Let’s be honest. Bernie was screwed by the dem party and Barrack Obama. Obama as the head of the Dems cut a deal with Hillary and made sure she was nominated. Crooked as hell but that’s what they did.

Not sure if Bernie the socialist could win. But offering free college he may have gotten the youth back out and offset Trumps swing of Dems. However, I am not so sure more Dems would have voted against Bernie. We are not socialists. But we allow their opinions.

Sanders has no chance in a national election.

[Chris]

What is a "radical democracy"?

Not entirely sure. The author of the second article is citing a socialist writing in Socialism’s Future May Be Its Past (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/finland-station-communism-socialism.html?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/7s78KL2P2c?amp=1). I can't read it as the NYT is pay per view after a certain point each month.

According to Radical democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_democracy) it's define in Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's 1985 Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, as a challenge to neoliberal and neoconservative concepts of democracy: "expand the liberal definition of democracy, based on freedom and equality, to include difference." Near as I can tell, multicultural, or, in today's terms, intersectional democracy.

[Mister D]

Not entirely sure. The author of the second article is citing a socialist writing in Socialism’s Future May Be Its Past (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/finland-station-communism-socialism.html?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/7s78KL2P2c?amp=1). I can't read it as the NYT is pay per view after a certain point each month.

According to Radical democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_democracy) it's define in Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's 1985 Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, as a challenge to neoliberal and neoconservative concepts of democracy: "expand the liberal definition of democracy, based on freedom and equality, to include difference." Near as I can tell, multicultural, or, in today's terms, intersectional democracy.
I don't doubt that there is something wrong with liberal democracy (neoliberal and especially neoconservative are meaningless in this context) and I've said so several times but what exactly would this radical democracy look like? I suspect Laclau and Mouffe don't know.

[Chris]

I don't doubt that there is something wrong with liberal democracy (neoliberal and especially neoconservative are meaningless in this context) and I've said so several times but what exactly would this radical democracy look like? I suspect Laclau and Mouffe don't know.

I suspect you're right. Way back, maybe two years ago now, Kilgram and I were arguing about communism/socialism vs free market. The challenge he came up with was building a bridge and I explain how free-market choice would work to build one. He would accept my explanation but when I turned it around on hom and asked how communism/socialism would build a bridge he contended that the process for deciding things political, economic, etc, would be democratic consensus building, which to me means majority rule, for how else do you overcome an impasse in which people disagree how to do something. He couldn't imagine such a situation because concensus must be the outcome. OK, so I think that's the, no, a problem with socialism, how do you make decisions about political, economic and other things in the face of differences of opinion?

Radical democracy is supposed to accommodate difference. I suspect their answer would be siilar to Kilgram's.

And I think that's what the second article gets at when it says "First, as much as the authors insist that previous examples of socialism were not 'really' socialist, none of them can tell us what exactly they would do differently. Rather than providing at least a rough outline of how 'their' version of socialism would work in practice, the authors escape into abstraction, and talk about lofty aspirations rather than tangible institutional characteristics."

[Mister D]

Haven't seen kilgram is a while.

By accommodating difference do they mean the minority? That I could agree with. Minority rights benefit everyone. After all, today's majority could quickly become the minority on any given issue but I fail to see what's radical about that. It's fundamental to any democratic system worthy of the name. Secondly, as you note genuine consensus is unrealistic. My concern is that socialists, to borrow from Chomsky's terminology, will manufacture consent or declare opposition illegitimate. I certainly agree that best gauge of a democracy's health is the extent to which citizens participate in the political process but I just don't know what exactly we're talking about here.

[Dr. Who]

The last few paragraphs and essence of the NYT article noted in the OP (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/finland-station-communism-socialism.html?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/7s78KL2P2c?amp=1):


But there is a third alternative: back to “Finland Station,” with all the lessons of the past. This time, people get to vote. Well, debate and deliberate and then vote — and have faith that people can organize together to chart new destinations for humanity.



Stripped down to its essence, and returned to its roots, socialism is an ideology of radical democracy. In an era when liberties are under attack, it seeks to empower civil society to allow participation in the decisions that affect our lives. A huge state bureaucracy, of course, can be just as alienating and undemocratic as corporate boardrooms, so we need to think hard about the new forms that social ownership could take.

Some broad outlines should already be clear: Worker-owned cooperatives, still competing in a regulated market; government services coordinated with the aid of citizen planning; and the provision of the basics necessary to live a good life (education, housing and health care) guaranteed as social rights. In other words, a world where people have the freedom to reach their potentials, whatever the circumstances of their birth.

We can get to this Finland Station only with the support of a majority; that’s one reason that socialists are such energetic advocates of democracy and pluralism. But we can’t ignore socialism’s loss of innocence over the past century. We may reject the version of Lenin and the Bolsheviks as crazed demons and choose to see them as well-intentioned people trying to build a better world out of a crisis, but we must work out how to avoid their failures.

That project entails a return to social democracy. Not the social democracy of François Hollande, but that of the early days of the Second International. This social democracy would involve a commitment to a free civil society, especially for oppositional voices; the need for institutional checks and balances on power; and a vision of a transition to socialism that does not require a “year zero” break with the present.

Our 21st-century Finland Station won’t be a paradise. You might feel heartbreak and misery there. But it will be a place that allows so many now crushed by inequity to participate in the creation of a new world.

[Chris]

Haven't seen kilgram is a while.

By accommodating difference do they mean the minority? That I could agree with. Minority rights benefit everyone. After all, today's majority could quickly become the minority on any given issue but I fail to see what's radical about that. It's fundamental to any democratic system worthy of the name. Secondly, as you note genuine consensus is unrealistic. My concern is that socialists, to borrow from Chomsky's terminology, will manufacture consent or declare opposition illegitimate. I certainly agree that best gauge of a democracy's health is the extent to which citizens participate in the political process but I just don't know what exactly we're talking about here.

That first point is kind of Rawlsian, his evil of ignorance.

Most socialism of any fame turned authoritarian. The communist detractors of Lenin, Kollantay and Luxemburg, argued trust the people.

I think one of the fatal flaw of communism/socialism is trying to make it universal, one way for all.

[Chris]

The last few paragraphs and essence of the NYT article noted in the OP (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/finland-station-communism-socialism.html?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/7s78KL2P2c?amp=1):


But there is a third alternative: back to “Finland Station,” with all the lessons of the past. This time, people get to vote. Well, debate and deliberate and then vote — and have faith that people can organize together to chart new destinations for humanity.



Stripped down to its essence, and returned to its roots, socialism is an ideology of radical democracy. In an era when liberties are under attack, it seeks to empower civil society to allow participation in the decisions that affect our lives. A huge state bureaucracy, of course, can be just as alienating and undemocratic as corporate boardrooms, so we need to think hard about the new forms that social ownership could take.

Some broad outlines should already be clear: Worker-owned cooperatives, still competing in a regulated market; government services coordinated with the aid of citizen planning; and the provision of the basics necessary to live a good life (education, housing and health care) guaranteed as social rights. In other words, a world where people have the freedom to reach their potentials, whatever the circumstances of their birth.

We can get to this Finland Station only with the support of a majority; that’s one reason that socialists are such energetic advocates of democracy and pluralism. But we can’t ignore socialism’s loss of innocence over the past century. We may reject the version of Lenin and the Bolsheviks as crazed demons and choose to see them as well-intentioned people trying to build a better world out of a crisis, but we must work out how to avoid their failures.

That project entails a return to social democracy. Not the social democracy of François Hollande, but that of the early days of the Second International. This social democracy would involve a commitment to a free civil society, especially for oppositional voices; the need for institutional checks and balances on power; and a vision of a transition to socialism that does not require a “year zero” break with the present.

Our 21st-century Finland Station won’t be a paradise. You might feel heartbreak and misery there. But it will be a place that allows so many now crushed by inequity to participate in the creation of a new world.










The Second International excluded libertarian anarchist and followed Marx and Lenin who saw the party vangard as the elite leaders issued orders to the masses as if they were factory owners bossing workers or generals commanding soldiers. USSR, China, Cuba, N Korea… So much for radical socialism.

[Chris]

To give credit, what I've said about Lenin and his metaphors as well as his detractors, Kollantay and Luxemburg, is derived from the chapter "The Revolutionary Party" in James C Scott's Seeing Like a State, a book about high modernists (progressives) who think you can define and design society according to lofty abstractions that leave out altogether the life of the people and their interactions, and always fail.

[Mister D]

The last few paragraphs and essence of the NYT article noted in the OP (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/finland-station-communism-socialism.html?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/7s78KL2P2c?amp=1):


But there is a third alternative: back to “Finland Station,” with all the lessons of the past. This time, people get to vote. Well, debate and deliberate and then vote — and have faith that people can organize together to chart new destinations for humanity.



Stripped down to its essence, and returned to its roots, socialism is an ideology of radical democracy. In an era when liberties are under attack, it seeks to empower civil society to allow participation in the decisions that affect our lives. A huge state bureaucracy, of course, can be just as alienating and undemocratic as corporate boardrooms, so we need to think hard about the new forms that social ownership could take.

Some broad outlines should already be clear: Worker-owned cooperatives, still competing in a regulated market; government services coordinated with the aid of citizen planning; and the provision of the basics necessary to live a good life (education, housing and health care) guaranteed as social rights. In other words, a world where people have the freedom to reach their potentials, whatever the circumstances of their birth.

We can get to this Finland Station only with the support of a majority; that’s one reason that socialists are such energetic advocates of democracy and pluralism. But we can’t ignore socialism’s loss of innocence over the past century. We may reject the version of Lenin and the Bolsheviks as crazed demons and choose to see them as well-intentioned people trying to build a better world out of a crisis, but we must work out how to avoid their failures.

That project entails a return to social democracy. Not the social democracy of François Hollande, but that of the early days of the Second International. This social democracy would involve a commitment to a free civil society, especially for oppositional voices; the need for institutional checks and balances on power; and a vision of a transition to socialism that does not require a “year zero” break with the present.

Our 21st-century Finland Station won’t be a paradise. You might feel heartbreak and misery there. But it will be a place that allows so many now crushed by inequity to participate in the creation of a new world.








What we should learn from Lenin et al is not that they were men who erred in the application of an ideology but rather that their ideology was fundamentally and unequivocally Satanic.

[Mister D]

That first point is kind of Rawlsian, his evil of ignorance.

Most socialism of any fame turned authoritarian. The communist detractors of Lenin, Kollantay and Luxemburg, argued trust the people.

I think one of the fatal flaw of communism/socialism is trying to make it universal, one way for all.
I do recall your discussions with kilgram now and his reluctance that to admit that force was inevitable. Frankly, I don't see how it could be any other way. If our "progressives" were honest they would agree.

[Dr. Who]

What we should learn from Lenin et al is not that they were men who erred in the application of an ideology but rather that their ideology was fundamentally and unequivocally Satanic.
I think that Satanic is a bit strong. :shocked: Actually, I only posted because I was able to access the article and thought that people should have some idea of what it said, given that my monthly access to articles hadn't expired. Socialism needn't be the horror stories of the past or even remotely like Chinese or NK socialism. The fact that it has been a political model turned to when people have been in dire straits economically and politically has had much to do with its failure. You can't flip a switch and become a 100% socialist nation. Socialism is an economic model, but it is also a way of thinking. Nations that have incredible wealth and incredible poverty are dangerous places. Vast wealth is not necessarily a healthy thing to aspire to because it always comes at a cost to others. A socialist world would not have an underclass of people who would work cheaply to make others rich. It wouldn't even pay the brilliant less than popular entertainers or those whose only real talent is that of persuasion.

Where socialism has been introduced gradually it has had a positive effect on the overall contentment of the citizens of those countries.

[Peter1469]

I think that Satanic is a bit strong. :shocked: Actually, I only posted because I was able to access the article and thought that people should have some idea of what it said, given that my monthly access to articles hadn't expired. Socialism needn't be the horror stories of the past or even remotely like Chinese or NK socialism. The fact that it has been a political model turned to when people have been in dire straits economically and politically has had much to do with its failure. You can't flip a switch and become a 100% socialist nation. Socialism is an economic model, but it is also a way of thinking. Nations that have incredible wealth and incredible poverty are dangerous places. Vast wealth is not necessarily a healthy thing to aspire to because it always comes at a cost to others. A socialist world would not have an underclass of people who would work cheaply to make others rich. It wouldn't even pay the brilliant less than popular entertainers or those whose only real talent is that of persuasion.

Where socialism has been introduced gradually it has had a positive effect on the overall contentment of the citizens of those countries.

Socialism would not pay anyone - it would give you a space to live and food to eat. You would do what ever work the State believed you were good at.

[Chris]

I do recall your discussions with kilgram now and his reluctance that to admit that force was inevitable. Frankly, I don't see how it could be any other way. If our "progressives" were honest they would agree.

I think on a small scale, subsidiarity approach, I think it possible.

[Chris]

I think that Satanic is a bit strong. :shocked: Actually, I only posted because I was able to access the article and thought that people should have some idea of what it said, given that my monthly access to articles hadn't expired. Socialism needn't be the horror stories of the past or even remotely like Chinese or NK socialism. The fact that it has been a political model turned to when people have been in dire straits economically and politically has had much to do with its failure. You can't flip a switch and become a 100% socialist nation. Socialism is an economic model, but it is also a way of thinking. Nations that have incredible wealth and incredible poverty are dangerous places. Vast wealth is not necessarily a healthy thing to aspire to because it always comes at a cost to others. A socialist world would not have an underclass of people who would work cheaply to make others rich. It wouldn't even pay the brilliant less than popular entertainers or those whose only real talent is that of persuasion.

Where socialism has been introduced gradually it has had a positive effect on the overall contentment of the citizens of those countries.

Yes, recognized you were just quoting another earlier.

But you're repeating the point criticized, that this time it'll be different, without explaining how it will be different.



Where socialism has been introduced gradually it has had a positive effect on the overall contentment of the citizens of those countries.

Where is that? I suspect you mean where certain element of society have been socialized, taken over by the government. Socialized and socialism are two distinct things.

[Dr. Who]

Socialism would not pay anyone - it would give you a space to live and food to eat. You would do what ever work the State believed you were good at.
Who says it has to be that way?

[Chris]

Who says it has to be that way?

It's the way it always turns out. Count Henri de Saint-Simon who coined the term socialism was an authoritarian. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, on and on.

Define another way.

[Peter1469]

Who says it has to be that way?

Socialism.

[Dr. Who]

Socialism.
It's not carved in stone.

[Tahuyaman]

I love how people claim certain authoritarian forms of government have always failed because they were never implemented in the proper way.

[Peter1469]

It's not carved in stone.
Words have meanings.

[Chris]

I love how people claim certain authoritarian forms of government have always failed because they were never implemented in the proper way.

I love when they claim there's another way of socialism that's not authoritarian but fail to say what that is.

[Tahuyaman]

I love when they claim there's another way of socialism that's not authoritarian but fail to say what that is.

They will say "democratic" socialism isn't an authoritarian form of government. Of course when you ask them to provide specifics as to how it is applied, they describe things which fall under other authoritarian systems attempted.

[Dr. Who]

Words have meanings.
That doesn't mean that they cannot be redefined or acquire new meanings. Political systems can be modified.

[Tahuyaman]

That doesn't mean that they cannot be redefined or acquire new meanings. Political systems can be modified.


That's the problem. Words are redefined to fit the popular culture or politically correct trend of the moment.

[Chris]

Redefined?

One problem I often posed to Kilgram, a communist/socialist on this forum, was let's say your definition and design of socialism is to let the people decide things political, economic, etc? OK, so what if they decided they wanted a system of private property and free markets? Oh, no, he would say, they would never. But they are free to do so.

So if you redefine socialism as free-market capitalism, is it not then no longer socialism?

[Peter1469]

That doesn't mean that they cannot be redefined or acquire new meanings. Political systems can be modified.
I was talking about socialism. Not something new.

[Tahuyaman]

Words have a specific definition. If a word doesn't communicate what you wish, choose another word. Don't redefine a word.