Mediaboss Marketing

Spencer Platt / Getty Images May Day March Takes Place In New York City

Watch the CBSN Originals documentary, "Speaking Frankly | Socialism," in the video player above.

Socialism: It's a buzzword in the 2020 election season, having sprung up dozens of times during campaign, particularly during the Republication National Convention. Conservative leaders depict the idea as a democracy-killing bogeyman. Some Democrats including Senator Bernie Sanders and Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib have embraced the label with gusto.

CBSN Originals presents "Speaking Frankly | Socialism"

Click to expand

UP NEXT

The political philosophy has history going back centuries. Directly or otherwise, it has influenced government policies around the world, including in America.

But what exactly does socialism mean? What do socialists want right now? And is the Republican warning that socialism is threatening to destroy the American way of life a real concern? There are some facts about socialism that are beyond dispute.

At its simplest, socialism calls for a nation's citizens to control at least some of its means of production the major ingredients needed for a healthy economy. Think infrastructure, energy, natural resources. Under socialism, any surplus or profit from those sectors must benefit those same citizens. Capitalism, meanwhile, calls for private owners to control the means of production and to keep any profit they make for themselves.

Many Americans see these two systems as opposites and Republicans, in particular, tend to view it as an either-or situation. In a recent Pew Research Centersurvey, the majority of Republicans (68%) expressed a positive view of capitalism and a negative view of socialism.

But a substantial minority of voters hold a positive view of both systems 25% of the overall group of Americans surveyed by Pew felt favorably about socialism as well as capitalism.

The fact is, the two systems can, and do, coexist in many countries. Some governments blend socialist policies with capitalism and democratically elected leadership, a system usually called social democracy.

No socialists are running for president on a major-party ticket in 2020. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party's nominees for president and vice president, are not socialists. They are not members of the current socialist party, called Socialist Party USA, or of the nation's biggest socialist organization, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which has about 70,000 members nationwide.

Asked what he'd say to people who were worried about socialism, Biden told Wisconsin stationWLUK-TV: "I beat the socialists. That's how I got elected. That's how I got the nomination. Do I look like a socialist? Look at my career, my whole career. I am not a socialist."

Overall, socialism accounts for a small percentage of America's political makeup. Socialist Party USA had no members in any national or state office in 2020. Only about half a dozen DSA members have held federal office over the years, all in the U.S. House of Representatives, including the current Congresswomen Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib. Senator Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist and has been supported by the DSA, but he is not a known member and does not run under the Socialist Party.

Republicans have frequently used the terms "socialism" and "socialist" as a threat or insult when referring to progressive candidates who are not actually socialists.

There have always been different types of socialists not to mention wildly varying ideas of what the "means of production" are, what role government should have, and where free enterprise might still fit in. Some socialists see "means of production" as all major industries, such as finance or energy.

For Jabari Brisport, a New York teacher and state senate candidate, "What [socialism] means is that energy, housing, health care, education, finance, and transportation ... shall be controlled publicly and not run by, for profit motive."

Other socialists have pushed for a total ban on private enterprise. Karl Marx, the Prussian intellectual who championed socialism in the 19th century, predicted that capitalism was doomed to fail, and a government-controlled economy would rise. Vladimir Lenin, whose Bolshevik revolution gave rise to the Soviet Union's communist regime, preferred armed struggle to help push capitalism into history's trash bin.

Today, the most prominent of America's socialists are very different from the Marxists of the past. They largely push for progressive reforms within capitalism a philosophy generally defined as social democracy.

The Democratic Socialists of America aims to blend socialism-inspired reforms with America's current free-enterprise system. The DSA does not believe private enterprise should be immediately overthrown in favor of a government-run economy. Instead, Ocasio-Cortez, for example, has pushed for a "revolution of working people at the ballot box" new laws and stronger unions to make private businesses more accountable to what DSA members see as public interests.

Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, has advocated for universal free health care, canceling all student debt, and expanding Social Security benefits within America's free-market economy.

The Republican Party has made socialism or more specifically, warnings about socialism a part of its 2020 campaign messaging. During the Republican National Convention in August, one of the speakers, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, cast socialism as antithetical to the American Dream.

"If we let them, [Democrats] will turn our country into a socialist utopia, and history has taught us that path only leads to pain and misery, especially for hard-working people hoping to rise," Scott said.

During his nomination acceptance speech, Mr. Trump echoed that warning, calling Joe Biden a "Trojan horse for socialism."

Some of Biden's policy proposals do call for big spending; he has proposed a$2 trillion clean energy plan. But Biden has also rejected ideas that are darlings of the DSA, such as the Green New Deal. (President Trump, for his part, has also pushed for mega-spending on areas that could be seen as means of production including a $12 billionaid package for farmers.)

Opponents of socialism often point to Venezuela as a cautionary tale. Once ranked as the richest South American country thanks to its oil reserves, in 1998 Venezuela elected a socialist leader, Hugo Chvez. Chvez centralized power in his increasingly authoritarian grip and spent billions on social programs from profits on oil. Under Chvez's successor, Nicols Maduro, global oil prices plummeted and Venezuela's petroleum-dependent economy collapsed.

"It's just empty, empty shelves, all over," says Venezuela-born Maria Fernanda Bello, a coalition director for Young Americans Against Socialism. "Socialists are always going to promise you free tuition, free health care, free everything, but they will never promise you freedom."

But American socialists like Bernie Sanders reject the comparison.

"Let me be very clear: Anybody who does what Maduro does is a vicious tyrant," Sanders said at a 2019 Democratic primary debate. "To equate what goes on in Venezuela to what I believe is extremely unfair."

Some of America's most popular policies have been linked with socialism since their inception, whether the label was earned or not. When Social Security was first proposed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the midst of the Great Depression, a suspicious senator asked the secretary of labor whether it counted as socialism. When told it did not, the senator responded, "Isn't this a teeny-weeny bit of socialism?"

American entrepreneurs have also taken advantage of programs that could be interpreted as socialism-lite.

Donald Trump's father, Fred, got his start building Depression-era homes for New York families with the help of the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA insures home mortgages made by private lenders essentially bringing some control over America's finances under the power of its people, via the federal government. Later, Fred Trump turned to the FHA again, building agency-backed housing for military families. Donald Trump later inherited his father's fortune, built in part by these projects.

See the article here:
What is socialism? And what do socialists really want in 2020?

By what standard do we evaluate a social system? Do we accept a system based on its theoretical structure, its promised outcome, a majority vote or is it by some other means that a system should be judged?

Concerning the system of socialism, most of its proponents seem to be taken in by its theory, not its merit. This is no insult to the socialists intelligence many of the brightest minds fall under its spell. Its a matter of perspective. The socialist tends toward rationalism. I say rationalism in the philosophical sense, meaning the socialist places higher trust in reason than in experience. On paper, this is only logical, but in practice, not all rational arguments unfold with such precision.

On the other hand, the capitalist tends toward empiricism, observing the system and formulating a judgment based on its applied effects. It is no secret that mankinds standard of living and political freedom have rapidly accelerated after the birth of capitalism. Its also no secret that the more society advances socialist doctrines, the more impoverished and enslaved they become.

This is not to say that free markets dont have their own shortcomings nor should it be said that the intentions of socialism are valueless. It isnt perfection that the capitalist seeks, rather effectiveness. It isnt that the capitalist is opposed to social justice, equality and economic freedom, rather that the methods by which the socialist proposes to achieve these ends have proven destructive.

Common ground between these two opposing camps may very well be found in empiricism. To bring about stronger cohesion and a unified political direction, socialists dont have to abandon their goals, only their methods.

Tanner Cook lives in Fargo.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

Follow this link:
Letter: The common ground between socialism and capitalism - INFORUM

Regarding Lance Morrows Can Freedom Survive the Narratives? (op-ed, May 17): Mr. Morrow worries that the corrosive narratives pedaled by the left may lead us into a sinister autocracy. He views race as a pretext for moving toward a post-capitalism era in which individual liberties are sacrificed for a common good. Marxists dreamed of Americas collectivist transformation, but class warfare couldn't overcome institutional obstacles and general prosperity. However, race-related unfairness and inequality can serve as a backdoor to a similar outcome.

Systemic racism is, in effect, a Trojan horse for rooting out what remains of Americas systemic conservatism. Individual responsibility, traditional values and Judeo-Christian faith are impediments to a communal, progressive utopia. In a classic and brilliant bait and switch, the lefts rooting out of racism yanks open the door to statism (i.e., a much more powerful and active federal government) that can remove conservative barriers to progress and force collectivism for a greater good. Legacy media and social media are exposing and canceling conservative heretics who are deemed racists, science deniers and liars.

When Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in 1831, he marveled at its success and potential but warned that its great vulnerability was the surrender of freedom without a struggle. If despotism surfaced in a democracy, Tocqueville thought it would be so pervasive as to entirely relieve citizens of the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living. Our systemic-racism exorcism in which systemic conservatism is the real target paves the way for statism. Leftist elites then can take care of us and relieve us of having to think, as long as we surrender some of our freedom. Mr. Morrow is channeling Tocqueville.

Ryan Graham

Melbourne, Fla.

See the original post:
Narrative May Work Where Socialism Failed - The Wall Street Journal

Jane Timken| Guest Columnist

Note from Dispatch Opinion and Community Engagement Editor Amelia Robinson: This guest column was submitted byJane Timken, a candidate for the United States Senate in Ohio.

As a mom, the well-being and education of our children are top concerns.

Even before the pandemic, our schools were falling behind.Now, weve seen a troubling pattern where Washington politics and special interest groups are placed above the needs of students.

More: Opinion: Biden's infrastructure is bad. President and allies are on a reckless path of tax-and-spend policies.

An entire generation of children lost a year of in-person learning. Weve seenproofthat teachers unions are in bed with the Biden administration, colluding to keep schools closed. And more and more, were seeing the left push their radical agenda through critical race theory which is seeping into school systems and turning schools into centers of leftist indoctrination.

Instead of teaching the facts of history good and bad critical race theory promotes a slanted view of America through a racial and ideological lens. While we must certainly teach empathy and how we can learn and grow as a nation, critical race theory seeks to stoke racial flames by creating a state of perpetual division between neighbors, friends, and communities.

More: Teaching kids to hate America? Republicans want critical race theory out of schools

As Im traveling Ohio, I hear from moms and dads with children of all ages that this woke education agenda is a top concern.

Ive heard from moms who are upset that their second grader is being forced to draw themselves as a different race and take classes on how to protest.

Ive heard from parents who are furious that their school district implemented gender-neutral bathrooms without even a message from their school board.

More: Opinion: Hypocrisy means the wrong things are too often canceled in our culture

Ive heard from moms who were dismayed that a non-credentialed teacher hosted a weeks-long seminar on racial and transgender issues to their elementary children, without ever notifying the parents. And all across Ohio, Im hearing from conservative college students who say they must suppress their opinions or they will receive a bad grade from their liberal professors.

President Donald Trump was right when he said there was a left-wing cultural revolution happening in our schools, and he rightly issued an executive order banning critical race theory.

Unfortunately, President Joe Biden rescinded this orderon his first day in office and hasproposed a rulethat would update all American history curricula to include the 1619 project.

More: Black lives matter is a statement of human rights

The 1619 Project and critical race theory are attempts by the radical left to inject socialism into every aspect of our lives. I believe moms, dads, and teachers know what is best for our kids in the classroom not partisan propagandists pushing a political agenda.

We should be educating and preparing the next generation of astronauts, manufacturers, and engineers not using taxpayer dollars to train the next generation of social justice activists. This is exactly what China wants to have our schools focusing on woke political correctness rather than teaching math and science.

Change starts from the grassroots, which is why I launched a listening tour across Ohio on this important issue to hear from concerned parents about what is happening behind classroom doors. Already, parents are fighting back against this liberal agenda by running for their school board, using public records requests, and demanding transparency. One thing is for sure - never underestimate the power of fired up moms and dads.

I believe America is the greatest country in the world that allows people of all race, color, and creed to achieve their own American Dream. That is the America I want to teach our children, and the America I will fight for in the United States Senate.

Jane Timken is a candidate for the United States Senate in Ohio. She was formerly Chairwoman of the Ohio Republican Party.

Continue reading here:
Opinion: 'Radical left' using 'race theory' to inject socialism into every aspect of life - The Columbus Dispatch

What is the public interest in unionizing government employees as they now are unionized in Connecticut?

The public interest in allowing private-sector workers to unionize is obvious. Without organized labor's countervailing force, big private business interests can gain control over communities, states, and sometimes the whole country.

But the government is not a private interest. It represents everybody, so organizing against it -- rather than organizing against a particular administration -- is against the public interest.

Liberals used to agree. Even during the Great Depression years President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed government employee unionism. So did New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia. They understood that coercion of the government by its own employees would subvert democracy itself.

But now liberals make common cause with government employee unions against the government. Even as Connecticut Democrats keep carping about the January "insurrection" in Washington by the crowd summoned by President Trump to protest the election results, Democratic state legislators are advancing a bill in the General Assembly to subvert state and municipal government. Their legislation would compel government agencies to stop being merely neutral about employee unionization and instead to coerce employees to join.

The legislation would direct state and municipal government agencies to sic unions on their new hires, notifying the unions of new hires, giving the unions the home contact information of new hires, inviting union representatives to orientation meetings, and providing work time for unions to propagandize new hires. All this would undermine a new employee's loyalty to his employer from the start.

There is no public interest in this. There is only a political interest -- the interest of Connecticut's Democratic Party in mobilizing government workers in support of the party's candidates.

There is already little management in government in Connecticut. Performance standards are low and the little discipline that is imposed is often weakened or nullified by the state Board of Mediation and Arbitration. This is not government of, by, and for the people, but government of, by, and for the unions -- and unlike the insurrection in Washington, this one, infinitely more subversive, is likely to be enacted while hardly being noticed.

* * *

Complaints of socialism are being hurled at the Biden administration by Republicans who think the label itself is enough, just as Republicans did back in the 1930s, '40s, and early '50s. But the label isnotenough, and President Harry Truman, a Democrat, answered the Republicans well in October 1952 not long before he left office.

"'Socialism,'" Truman said, "is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called Social Security.

"Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

But socialism isn't always progress, for Truman's list was incomplete.

Socialism is also perpetual stupid imperial wars. Socialism is government bailouts for crooked investment banks. Socialism is excessive salaries and unaccountability for government employees. Socialism is government's award of privilege to racial and ethnic groups.

Socialism is government's pretense that men can be women and its requiring women's sports to admit men. Socialism is the government's paying people not to grow crops and now even paying them not to work.

That is, socialism isanythingthe government does in the name of progress, and since some of it is good and some isn't, the word is meaningless as an epithet.

The serious issue here is something else. According to the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis, government now is the direct source of more than a third of the country's personal income.

So does the country still want a free-market economy with a dominant private sector, or does it want government to control more than it already does?

Chris Powell is a columnist for the Journal Inquirer.

Read more:
Connecticut Democrats try subversion as well; and 'socialism' epithet says nothing - Journal Inquirer