Blending Socialism and Capitalism and coming up with a working system
is as possible as blending water and oil and coming up with Whipped
Cream.
Even as a young boy I learned the lesson that you can't compromise
with Greed. As a 12 year old boy, I took my bag of marbles to the
school yard to enter into a game of "Bubs". As I knelt at the edge of
the circle, Big Bill and his brother Jumbo Jim walked up and grabbed
my bag of marbles...and kept right on walking. I cussed them
out...until they stopped, turned around and began walking back toward
me. I turned tail and ran for home.
Over the years I came to hate everything about those Bully Brothers,
their swagger, their sneers, their belittling verbal attacks, their
crude treatment of, and talk about girls, and their contempt for any
law they did not want to obey. Back then the Bully Brothers were in
the minority, but as the years rolled by, their kind began to
grow...and grow...and grow, until one of them wound up in the White
House.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/28/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can Socialism Save American Democracy?
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. (Matt Rourke / AP)
It was all but a formal declaration of his re-election strategy. "Here in
the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our
country," President Donald Trump bellowed during his State of the Union
address in February. "Tonight, we renew our resolve that this will never be
a socialist country." (It should be noted that the line earned applause
from
several congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.)
Since then, such avowals among Republicans have only gotten louder,
culminating in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's recent call to make
2020 a "referendum on socialism." McConnell's remarks beg the question:
Amid
the greatest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in American
history, is this still the reliable line of attack the GOP seems to think
it
is?
In the preface to his new book, "The Socialist Manifesto," Jacobin founder
and editor Bhaskar Sunkara argues that "it's obvious things are changing,"
and data would appear to support his claim. According to the latest Gallup
poll, "43 percent of Americans say socialism would be a good thing for the
country"-between 1% and 2% more than approve of the president's job
performance. Among people of color, that number climbs to 57%.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., a self-described democratic socialist, is a top
contender for the Democratic nomination, and freshman Rep. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez has emerged as one of the leading voices within the party
(her
national approval ratings have remained relatively low, thanks in no small
part to Fox News' coverage of her every utterance). Meanwhile, the
Democratic Socialists of America has seen its membership soar from around
6,000 between 2011 and 2015 to 56,000-a modest number that nonetheless
reflects a growing interest in its politics.
If Jacobin has sought to provide an intellectual framework for contemporary
socialist thought, then Sunkara's book offers a mission statement for the
uninitiated, as well as a blueprint for "how we win." But "The Socialist
Manifesto" is much more than a "For Dummies"-style tutorial. In making his
case for an "alternative politics," Sunkara distills hundreds of years'
worth of international labor struggle into a succinct and compelling
narrative, ranging from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to the Social
Democratic Party in Germany, to the birth of the Second International and
the October Revolution, to Eugene V. Debs and the Socialist Party of
America
in the U.S., and across Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. And true to his
philosophical forebears, he provides a devastating indictment not just of
capitalism but of liberalism's complicity in its crimes.
"Socialism has survived a lot over the past century," he writes. "It's
survived persecution from tyrants and the tyrants that it itself gave birth
to. It survived the radical reshaping of capitalism and that of its great
protagonist, the working class. But does socialism really have a future? .
Technical and political barriers to progress can't be underestimated, but
if
we are to make something better of our shared world, socialist politics,
broadly conceived, offer us the best tools we have for getting there."
Over the phone, Sunkara spoke with Truthdig about the major differences
between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the future of Medicare-for-all
and socialism's tenuous alliance with the Democratic Party. What follows is
a transcript of the conversation, lightly edited and compressed for
clarity.
Jacob Sugarman: The cover of the National Review's latest issue simply
reads, "Against Socialism." Judging from the magazine's recent history, I
can only assume that a socialist America is at hand.
Bhaskar Sunkara: [Chuckles] Yeah, it's very exciting that democratic
socialist groups are once again on the map in the United States. The way
that I would think of it is that we are a political movement that was in a
deep coma. While we've finally woken up from that coma, we're still lying
on
our hospital beds, so we have a long way to go before democratic socialism
is a mass part of American life. Right now, we have to be wary of
conflating
our success with the media event around it. Having a few popular
politicians
and lots of young enthusiastic people on social media is not the same as
having deep roots in the working class, but it's a start. When we
[launched]
Jacobin in late 2010, it was kind of a crazy thing to call yourself a
socialist.
JS: The U.S. political establishment is obviously no stranger to
redbaiting,
even since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Republicans certainly did it
to
Obama while he was in office. But during my adult life, I can't remember
this level of panic from the right, even as it controls the White House,
Senate and Supreme Court. So what do you think has changed?
BS: I think it can partly be explained by the collapse of liberal centrism,
or at least the collapse of Clintonism in 2016. We've seen all this
anti-establishment energy be monopolized by the right, and I think
socialists, particularly Bernie Sanders, are viewed as a threat because
they're clearly not part of the Democratic Party establishment. They're
speaking to the same anger, but they're doing so from the left. Why would
Trump take aim at largely discredited figures like [Nancy] Pelosi and
[Chuck] Schumer when he can attack this new insurgent force?
What we're seeing, I think, is the growth of an opposition movement that's
clearly defined to the left of liberalism, that actually stands for
something. The anger isn't just posturing-it's connected now with real
policies like the Green New Deal and Medicare-for-all. And I think our
message is frightening because we're telling people that they deserve more
and better, and that by joining with their neighbors in solidarity, they
can
lift themselves up. It's a much more compelling narrative than that of
fear-mongering about immigrants taking our jobs.
JS: In your book, you note that the Sanders/Warren wing of the Democratic
Party, as it has been dubbed by the political press, is something of a
misnomer. Can you explain why you believe Bernie to be a superior vehicle,
not just for democratic socialism but social democracy as well?
BS: Right, so I should add the caveat that I really do appreciate Sen.
Warren and her contributions to the Democratic primary. She's pushing
forward a lot of ideas in these policy papers, and I think she's going to
be
a very positive force during the debates. Also, she and Sanders have a
rapport; they're not attacking each other. But when choosing between the
two, I can't help but look at their backgrounds and, ultimately, their
worldviews. Bernie Sanders was a part of the Young People's Socialist
League
in the early 1950s and has identified as a socialist in the years since. He
participated in civil rights and trade union organizations in the '60s and
'70s.
In the '70s and '80s, he engaged in independent electoral runs, including
as
the mayor of Burlington. During that period, he also took part in some
really incredible anti-imperialist and solidarity efforts in Central
America
and South Africa. He was a part of the American left, and what I think this
has imparted to him is the importance of taking on entrenched interests,
which we can only do if we organize together against our common enemy. You
can hear it in his rhetoric and the way that he directs the public's anger
at millionaires and billionaires.
When it comes to Warren, I'm not one of those people who really harps on
the
fact that she was a Republican up until the mid- to late '90s. But when she
talks about the political revolution, she's less inclined to question the
political system itself. She's more interested in unrigging the game so
that
working people can participate in it as equals. So that suggests to me
[that] her approach is that of a regulator rather than a class warrior. She
can summon populist rhetoric, and can do so quite effectively on occasion,
but I think Sanders has already proven himself as someone who can galvanize
a base of millions of people. He can build a network of volunteers who have
the fundraising capabilities to compete with some of these really big
establishment candidates. I believe his coalition could change the next 10
to 15 years of American policy.
JS: You make the case that Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn in the U.K. pose a
radical break with the Third Way-ism of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair but
also
social democrats like Olof Palme in Sweden. What separates their political
projects from those of their predecessors?
BS: If you're on the left, I think the criticism of social democrats since
the 1960s has been that they channel popular anger, activism and
organization into [electoralism]. This can ultimately be depoliticizing,
because you're taking all this energy to get people elected. But once these
people are elected, in order to legislate, you need social peace. So you're
sitting down labor and capital at the table with the state to figure out
what ultimately works for capital.
The other criticism that applies to many of the center-left parties like
the
U.K. Labour Party is that they're extremely wedded to the U.S.-backed
imperial project. Look at the Harold Wilson government [in Britain] when it
came to things like Vietnam. Today, if you look at Sanders, if you look at
Corbyn, these are people that aren't funneling existing working class
struggles into elections but using electoral campaigns to regalvanize
long-dormant working class [organization]. They're trying to figure out how
we can build trade-union and other social movements from below.
When it comes to imperial projects, Sanders has stood against U.S. policies
within the Middle East and elsewhere. He might not go far enough for [some]
of us on the left, but it's still a radical departure from what other
Democratic candidates are putting forward. Corbyn's politics are even more
resolutely anti-imperialist. He's so hated by the British military that
paratroopers were caught on video using his photograph for target practice.
So to me, the difference is obvious. We've been in a period of deep defeat,
and these campaigns are sparks attracting people to the ideas of the left,
but also encouraging us to go out there and take the movement into our own
hands. It's very hard to overstate, the level of deep depoliticization and
the weakness of [unions] over the past 20 to 30 years. It's unprecedented
in
the history of capitalism.
JS: If we can return to Sanders for a moment, you argue that
Medicare-for-all is indeed achievable, and I'm curious to know how you
reconcile this idea with Sanders' own stated aversion to constitutional
hardball. Even if he were to get rid of the filibuster, which he claims
he's
reluctant to do, it seems very possible to me that most, if not all, of his
legislative agenda would be dead on arrival were he to win in 2020.
BS: I think his [argument] is that "If you elect me president, the
environment will be different, and I'll be able to corral the court and the
democratic majority to move forward with my legislative priorities." If
there's enough mobilization from the outside, Sanders could use his bully
pulpit, and I think that has to be our approach. We obviously want to use
the upcoming election to say, "These are the priorities, this system needs
to provide Medicare-for-all, these people in Congress need to vote for this
mandate, otherwise we need a primary vote." I don't believe in the politics
of wishful thinking, but it seems to me a good-enough starting point,
especially since there's so much popular support for his legislative
[agenda].
JS: I guess my concern is that it's not clear to me that Democrats can
reclaim the Senate, even if they were to win the presidential election in
convincing fashion.
BS: Historically, Sanders has been a proponent of lots of political reform,
including the abolition of filibusters. I don't support his decision to
[back away from that now], but it seems to me that he's saying, "In the
abstract, I'm for getting rid of the filibuster. But now [that] there's a
Republican majority in the Senate, God knows what Trump could do if there
was no filibuster. This is an important tool used against a rival." [I
understand his thinking], but I think that's a very dangerous and
unprincipled way to think about things.
We are a part of a democracy, and I [believe] we should ultimately be
calling for an abolition of the Senate and the creation of unicameral
government that's proportionally elected. We should get rid of
gerrymandering in the House and make the House elections even more
democratic. But yeah, I think that's his logic, which is a very mainstream
Democratic argument from a really firebrand figure. It doesn't seem to jibe
with what he is about or his previous statements over the decade, and I
hope
it's just an aberration. [It's also possible] that Sanders wants to start
with Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal, issues where we're strong,
and
then, in the process of fighting for those things, we can better galvanize
support for the political reforms necessary to get them passed.
JS: I'm glad you brought up the Green New Deal, because Nancy Pelosi has
been openly contemptuous of the proposal. What kind of place does a
socialist movement ultimately have within the Democratic Party, if any?
BS: I think our stance has to be that we will run in a Democratic primary
more often than not. This is not because we're committed to the Democratic
Party, but because we know that the social base for our policies are made
with committed Democratic voters. These people are not Democrats because
they're dumb; they're Democrats because they're smart. They proudly believe
in redistribution, they proudly believe in fighting racism, they proudly
believe in defending Social Security and Medicare, and it makes sense to
make sure Republicans are not in office.
In the long term, I do believe we need an independent party of the left,
because we need a party rooted in the working class the way the Democrats
are not. But in the short term, we have to run Democrats who are open
Bernie-crats or open democratic socialists. I think that's a starting point
and something we would consider a breakthrough. And for readers who think
that Bernie and AOC are sheepdogs, I would urge them to speak to people in
Nancy Pelosi's office to see what they think of this new crop of
insurgents,
because they're giving them lots of headaches. They certainly don't think
that they're regular Democrats there to help [the party].
There are dangers in this strategy, but we can't be stuck in the mentality
that "if we build it, they will come." We [just] can't spend all of our
energy and resources constructing an independent third-party ballot line.
In
this country, there have been so many barriers thrown up against us that we
need to find a different way.
JS: How can democratic socialism neutralize the surge in right-wing
nationalism across the U.S. and Western Europe?
BS: I think that a lot of this surge has followed the collapse of social
democracy. It's easy to correlate these things. If you're seeing your
welfare benefits rolled back in the 1990s and the 2000s, and you're also
seeing your country have a higher proportion of immigrants, you might not
recognize that these immigrants are creating value with their jobs and
their
efforts, [or] that the welfare state would be even more strained if they
weren't there. Instead, you're saying, "My pie was getting bigger, and it's
no longer getting bigger. Now it's getting smaller, and it's being divvied
up into more pieces." It's a false-scarcity mentality, and I think people
have [confused] the retreat of the welfare state with the diversification
of
some of these societies. [We also don't have] mass parties that incorporate
immigrant workers with native-born workers to unite around a positive
program.
The key is to recreate a politics of solidarity that fights against this
narrative of false scarcity, that says that when working people band
together, they can, in fact, get higher wages, they can get better
benefits,
they can win a welfare state-and that your enemy isn't your neighbor next
door willing to work for a buck or two an hour less than you, but the
people
[imposing this austerity].
JS: Fairly or not, organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America
have come under scrutiny for their failure to appeal to people of color.
How
is this remedied, and what kind of place do identity politics ultimately
have in the movement?
BS: [I'm glad] you asked that question, because I happen to think the
problem is actually overstated. My favorite genre of mainstream coverage of
DSA are articles where a white journalist asks brown or black members,
"Where are the people of color?" I think the real issue is that the DSA is
not yet firmly rooted in the working class, and if the working class is
disproportionately people of color, that also means the DSA is going to be
disproportionally white.
If DSA's starting point is the white middle class, then we have two
alternatives. We can either get all these members together in central
Brooklyn and chat about how it's a shame that we're so white, or we can
take
our existing base and implant ourselves in working-class movements and
struggles. We can take those people, which we're doing now, and we can get
them to help the Crown Heights tenants union. We can have them canvassing
for Medicare-for-all, and we can have them volunteering for the Bernie
Sanders campaign, which involves a hell of a lot of door-knocking in brown
and black communities. Once you're implanted, you become more diverse.
I think we in the media class have a tendency to make it seem like we can't
comprehend what black or brown working people want. But it's pretty easy to
understand the basic desire for security and prosperity, and I think we can
forge a common movement fighting for these things. The most marginalized
groups have the most to gain, but there's no doubt in my mind that white
Americans in general would greatly benefit as well. And I don't think
[invoking] some grad school critical race theory does us any good. If
anything, it only reinforces the idea that the DSA is some kind of rarefied
terrain, where you need to know a fancy language to participate. We need to
become more accessible, more rooted in the working class, and more small-D
democratic.
JS: I'm almost reluctant to cite them as examples because technologies have
evolved so much in the decades since, but you yourself acknowledge that
both
the Soviet Union and Maoist China had abysmal environmental records. Why do
you think that democratic socialism is better positioned to address our
ever-worsening climate crisis?
BS: I think both countries were trying to catch up with their capitalist
rivals, [and in doing so] China and the Soviet Union poisoned their
landscapes. What I would say is that if we think democratic socialism can
expand the scope of conscious democratic planning, then we can be more
rational about medium- to long-term outcomes, rather than [simply pursuing]
short-term profitability. So the state can say, "We can get a coal power
plant online faster, and we need energy right now. But we'll be paying for
the extra fossil fuel consumption over the next 10, 15, 20 years, so it
[makes more sense] to pursue renewable energy resources." And even if these
firms are competing in the market, they can be subjected to greater
democratic legislation.
Right now, we need to remind people that climate change is a problem
affecting the world and all of humanity, but we're not all equally
responsible for it. You, me, the people reading this-none of us are
directly
profiting from coal and fossil fuels, and the marginal cost for us to
switch
over to a different form of energy in our homes and businesses is going to
be a lot less than if we derived our money from owning these dirty plants.
Almost overnight, the Green New Deal has [helped transform]
environmentalism
from a middle-class to a working-class concern by connecting it with jobs.
I
think that's what we need, a working-class environmentalism. I believe if
you give people enough democracy, they will make rational decisions for
themselves. And the society with the greater skill for planning and
regulation will bring about change better than one that relies on an
anarchic market.
JS: Global warming and automation appear to threaten our very notion of a
livable future. After the failures of the 20th century, why do you believe
socialism is worth fighting for?
BS: We don't live in the worst of all possible worlds, but everything good
[about it], as far I can tell, has been achieved through the conscious
efforts of the organized workers movement. I'm not especially religious,
but
in Christian scripture, God rested on the seventh day. We have the sixth
day
off-most of us, anyway-and that's because of the workers movement. There
have been real limits placed on the ability of people to extort [one
another] that have been democratically forced upon us by organized workers.
Faced with extinction or, at least, a descent into a new form of scarcity
and barbarism and a [restructuring of] society, I think people will choose
the latter. [If the alternatives] are a group of enlightened liberal
technocrats who lack mass support and right-wing populists who divide us
from each other, I have to think that democratic socialism is, if not the
inevitable choice, the most viable or the most agreeable for the future of
humanity. And we've confronted a lot of problems before. The end of
slavery,
the victory over fascism and the civil rights movement were not inevitable.
These were battles in which we fought a real opposition, in which it wasn't
clear that the forces of progress would prevail. So I think we need to look
back at the 150-plus years [of] movement of the left and acknowledge the
real victories, not just the defeats, and that we can do it again.
Jacob Sugarman
Managing Editor
Jacob Sugarman is the managing editor at Truthdig. He is a graduate of the
Arthur L. Carter Institute of Journalism whose writing has appeared in
Salon, AlterNet and Tablet, among other.
Jacob Sugarman
