The Future of Socialism in the US: An Interview With Kshama Sawant
Wednesday, 18 November 2015 00:00 By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview
(Image: Lauren Walker / Truthout)
Help Truthout keep publishing stories like this: They can't be found in
corporate media! Make a tax-deductible donation today.
Why is there no socialism in US national politics? This question has haunted
historians and political analysts since the German sociologist Werner
Sombart raised it more than 100 years ago in an effort to explain an
apparent anomaly: The United States was the only nation in the industrial
world that did not have an organized labor movement directed toward
socialist goals. In fact, socialism itself was regarded by most Americans at
the time as a foreign idea, which helped to explain why there was no
socialist party functioning on a national level, but instead only sectarian
left groups at the local level.
"THE SOCIALIST VISION IS AN ANATHEMA TO THE ESTABLISHMENT."
Sombart's explanation for the absence of socialism in the United States as a
vital alternative path to the organization of the economy along capitalist
principles and values was attributed to capitalism's own vitality and what
he regarded as the love affair that US workers had with the free enterprise
system. For all practical intents and purposes, he might have also included
anti-intellectualism, as US culture was not hospitable to intellectuals, and
socialism could not have been what it was without the influence of the
intelligentsia.
In the present day, while socialism has yet to establish firm roots across
the United States, new political and social developments may herald more
promising things to come for the spread of the socialist vision in US
society. Turn-of-the-millennium developments such as the rise of the
anti-globalization movement and the emergence of the Occupy movement have
both been fueled by late capitalism's growing tendency to create economic
bubbles and to concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands. Meanwhile, the
appearance of Bernie Sanders on the national political stage and the
re-election of Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant, an avowedly open
socialist, are highly important developments for the future of socialism in
the United States.
The case of Sawant seems to be of particularly great significance because it
shows that political candidates do not have to make ideological compromises
in order to get elected. In fact, Sawant's radical political message ensured
her re-election in the state and local elections of November 2015, as she
revealed in an exclusive interview with Truthout.
C.J. Polychroniou: Your re-election to the Seattle City Council has to be
seen as an even more important step for the advancement of the socialist
cause in the United States than your election in 2013, when you ran on a
platform advocating a $15-an-hour minimum wage and were of course the first
independent socialist elected in a major US city in decades. What was your
message to voters this time around?
Kshama Sawant: Well, let me start by saying that the city of Seattle and the
state of Washington are home to some of the world's wealthiest corporations,
and there is an economic boom going on here for sometime now. At the same
time, however, wealth is highly concentrated, many young people are left
behind because of unemployment and the lack of decent jobs paying decent
wages and salaries, and the working population and retirees in general are
experiencing declining living standards, which is of course the general
pattern throughout the country. In addition, we have the most regressive tax
system in the nation. So my re-election campaign focused specifically on
those issues: affordable housing, funding education and transportation, and
progressive taxation.
Tell us specifically about the housing and homeless crisis in Seattle.
Rents in the city of Seattle have been rising faster than in any other major
US city. Working people and people of color are being driven out because
they cannot afford the high rents. In addition, we have a very serious
homeless crisis, which only last year increased by 21 percent. The housing
crisis is a real and deep crisis in Seattle, although neither Democrats nor
Republicans have been willing to tackle the issue in any meaningful and
effective way. They are against both rent controls and raising taxes for the
rich.
Obviously, people responded to your concerns about the housing crisis and
your message about economic inequality and did so while you ran a campaign
as a socialist. Aren't you the least surprised about this?
Not really. Take for example young people who were very supportive of my
re-election campaign. They are aware that they won't see the middle-class
living standards of their parents. So they understood what my message was
all about. Same goes about retirees and people of color. My support came
precisely from those constituencies that are most directly affected by the
inequalities and injustices produced by the capitalist system. My campaign
mobilized over 600 volunteers. And I did run, of course, as an open
Socialist Alternative candidate.
How were you treated by your opponents and the mainstream media in general?
Naturally, I was attacked by my opponents for being a socialist and the
mission of the mainstream media was to discredit me, especially since they
did not take us seriously the first time out. The Seattle Times, an
establishment newspaper, was particularly vicious towards me. I was also
attacked for caring about international issues and not merely local issues.
The socialist vision is an anathema to the establishment.
I intend to find out what socialism means for you, but first I would like to
have your views on capitalism. For example, you have said that capitalism is
not working. Yet, many will rush to challenge this view by pointing out the
recent economic "success" of nations like China and India that have moved
away from a command economy and, as result, have experienced historically
high rates of growth and growing middle classes. Do you question this
"fact"?
It is true that capitalism has raised the standard of living in China and
India and did so in many Western countries in the past. But we must not
forget that the gains under capitalism have been achieved for the most part
through class struggles. This is the case about the eight-hour workday, the
unionization of workers, social benefits and so on. But capitalism is no
longer achieving growth that benefits even slightly the working-class
populations. Under finance capitalism, we have bubbles, volatility and
chaos. Under finance capitalism, there is a tension between a booming
economy and young people.
"SOCIALISM HAS TO START FROM SOMEWHERE. AND THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO
IN SEATTLE FOR THE UNITED STATES."
I believe that capitalism cannot offer a sustainable future. Human needs are
simply not in congruence with a capitalist economy, which thrives on the
maximization of profit. As for the financialization of the economy, the
transition from industrial capitalism was made precisely because the system
was no longer sustainable and it needed new profit-making venues. Now, every
aspect of society is wrapped around financialization, making the many poor
and the few ever richer.
Austerity has emerged as the official economic dogma pretty much throughout
the advanced capitalist world. In your view, is austerity a response to
sovereign debt and deficits or something more sinister?
Austerity is being imposed by the financial elite and the banksters, who, of
course, control much of the political process. It is a means for the
capitalists to generate more profits and to rollback working-class gains. It
is a rational process, an excuse to sovereign debt and deficits, and I think
most people understand that. The problem is that few politicians are willing
to speak out on behalf of the people and against the elite.
You were involved in the Occupy movement. What do you consider to be the
most important aspect of Occupy?
Occupy brought to the forefront the reality of economic inequality and made
it a central component of political debate in the country. Occupy went
further than previous resistance movements by naming an enemy: the richest
1%, the financial elite that buys politicians and gets itself bailed out by
the government while the rest of us, the 99%, are paying for the costs of
the bailouts and getting ripped off by those at the top of the economic
pyramid.
However, figuring out a strategy for change requires that we get to the root
of the problem of inequality, class and power in society. It requires a
deeper understanding of the political economy of capitalism. Working people
produce the vast wealth of society, but we only receive a small part of that
in wages, while the capitalists extract huge profits from our labor. So the
challenge is the re-emergence of the labor movement as a serious force in US
society. A labor movement that sees the working people as a central force to
change the world and end all forms of oppression and exploitation. So the
task is of a double nature: to promote unions, as they are the strongest
organizations we have to improve our living standards, and to fight to
transform unions. Rebuilding unions as fighting organizations requires,
again, building an alternative to the present dominant structure. [It
requires] vision and strategy in labor.
What is socialism for you?
Socialism is the vision of a global society that allows a high standard of
living in a sustainable manner without oppression and exploitation.
Socialism is by definition an international project as it is nearly
impossible to be established and thrive in a national setting. A socialist
nation in a capitalist sea will result in the deformities that socialism
experienced in places like the Soviet Union. So, as socialists, we must
always work for the spread of socialism throughout the world and not confine
our activities to our own local or national setting.
Are you implying then that the trend toward world socialism is a
prerequisite for the realization of the socialist vision?
Yes, because no single country can have all the necessary resources to
sustain itself and run a socialist economy. The history of socialism teaches
us that capitalist countries will do everything in their power to
strangulate a socialist nation. But, obviously, socialism has to start from
somewhere. And this is what we are trying to do in Seattle for the United
States.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
C.J. POLYCHRONIOU
C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has
taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the
United States. His main research interests are in European economic
integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and
the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a
regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public
Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have
appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news
websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign
languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish
and Turkish.
RELATED STORIES
How Seattle City Council Is Fighting the TPP's Fast-Track: An Interview With
Kshama Sawant
By Thom Hartmann, The Thom Hartmann Program | Video Interview
Economic Update: Sawant in Seattle
By Richard D. Wolff, Truthout | Audio Segment
Seattle Led the Country's Minimum Wage Revolution. Can It Do the Same With
Rent Control?
By Marcus Harrison Green, YES! Magazine | News Analysis
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
The Future of Socialism in the US: An Interview With Kshama Sawant
Wednesday, 18 November 2015 00:00 By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. (Image: Lauren Walker / Truthout)
. Help Truthout keep publishing stories like this: They can't be found
in corporate media! Make a tax-deductible donation today.
Why is there no socialism in US national politics? This question has haunted
historians and political analysts since the German sociologist Werner
Sombart raised it more than 100 years ago in an effort to explain an
apparent anomaly: The United States was the only nation in the industrial
world that did not have an organized labor movement directed toward
socialist goals. In fact, socialism itself was regarded by most Americans at
the time as a foreign idea, which helped to explain why there was no
socialist party functioning on a national level, but instead only sectarian
left groups at the local level.
"The socialist vision is an anathema to the establishment."
Sombart's explanation for the absence of socialism in the United States as a
vital alternative path to the organization of the economy along capitalist
principles and values was attributed to capitalism's own vitality and what
he regarded as the love affair that US workers had with the free enterprise
system. For all practical intents and purposes, he might have also included
anti-intellectualism, as US culture was not hospitable to intellectuals, and
socialism could not have been what it was without the influence of the
intelligentsia.
In the present day, while socialism has yet to establish firm roots across
the United States, new political and social developments may herald more
promising things to come for the spread of the socialist vision in US
society. Turn-of-the-millennium developments such as the rise of the
anti-globalization movement and the emergence of the Occupy movement have
both been fueled by late capitalism's growing tendency to create economic
bubbles and to concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands. Meanwhile, the
appearance of Bernie Sanders on the national political stage and the
re-election of Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant, an avowedly open
socialist, are highly important developments for the future of socialism in
the United States.
The case of Sawant seems to be of particularly great significance because it
shows that political candidates do not have to make ideological compromises
in order to get elected. In fact, Sawant's radical political message ensured
her re-election in the state and local elections of November 2015, as she
revealed in an exclusive interview with Truthout.
C.J. Polychroniou: Your re-election to the Seattle City Council has to be
seen as an even more important step for the advancement of the socialist
cause in the United States than your election in 2013, when you ran on a
platform advocating a $15-an-hour minimum wage and were of course the first
independent socialist elected in a major US city in decades. What was your
message to voters this time around?
Kshama Sawant: Well, let me start by saying that the city of Seattle and the
state of Washington are home to some of the world's wealthiest corporations,
and there is an economic boom going on here for sometime now. At the same
time, however, wealth is highly concentrated, many young people are left
behind because of unemployment and the lack of decent jobs paying decent
wages and salaries, and the working population and retirees in general are
experiencing declining living standards, which is of course the general
pattern throughout the country. In addition, we have the most regressive tax
system in the nation. So my re-election campaign focused specifically on
those issues: affordable housing, funding education and transportation, and
progressive taxation.
Tell us specifically about the housing and homeless crisis in Seattle.
Rents in the city of Seattle have been rising faster than in any other major
US city. Working people and people of color are being driven out because
they cannot afford the high rents. In addition, we have a very serious
homeless crisis, which only last year increased by 21 percent. The housing
crisis is a real and deep crisis in Seattle, although neither Democrats nor
Republicans have been willing to tackle the issue in any meaningful and
effective way. They are against both rent controls and raising taxes for the
rich.
Obviously, people responded to your concerns about the housing crisis and
your message about economic inequality and did so while you ran a campaign
as a socialist. Aren't you the least surprised about this?
Not really. Take for example young people who were very supportive of my
re-election campaign. They are aware that they won't see the middle-class
living standards of their parents. So they understood what my message was
all about. Same goes about retirees and people of color. My support came
precisely from those constituencies that are most directly affected by the
inequalities and injustices produced by the capitalist system. My campaign
mobilized over 600 volunteers. And I did run, of course, as an open
Socialist Alternative candidate.
How were you treated by your opponents and the mainstream media in general?
Naturally, I was attacked by my opponents for being a socialist and the
mission of the mainstream media was to discredit me, especially since they
did not take us seriously the first time out. The Seattle Times, an
establishment newspaper, was particularly vicious towards me. I was also
attacked for caring about international issues and not merely local issues.
The socialist vision is an anathema to the establishment.
I intend to find out what socialism means for you, but first I would like to
have your views on capitalism. For example, you have said that capitalism is
not working. Yet, many will rush to challenge this view by pointing out the
recent economic "success" of nations like China and India that have moved
away from a command economy and, as result, have experienced historically
high rates of growth and growing middle classes. Do you question this
"fact"?
It is true that capitalism has raised the standard of living in China and
India and did so in many Western countries in the past. But we must not
forget that the gains under capitalism have been achieved for the most part
through class struggles. This is the case about the eight-hour workday, the
unionization of workers, social benefits and so on. But capitalism is no
longer achieving growth that benefits even slightly the working-class
populations. Under finance capitalism, we have bubbles, volatility and
chaos. Under finance capitalism, there is a tension between a booming
economy and young people.
"Socialism has to start from somewhere. And this is what we are trying to do
in Seattle for the United States."
I believe that capitalism cannot offer a sustainable future. Human needs are
simply not in congruence with a capitalist economy, which thrives on the
maximization of profit. As for the financialization of the economy, the
transition from industrial capitalism was made precisely because the system
was no longer sustainable and it needed new profit-making venues. Now, every
aspect of society is wrapped around financialization, making the many poor
and the few ever richer.
Austerity has emerged as the official economic dogma pretty much throughout
the advanced capitalist world. In your view, is austerity a response to
sovereign debt and deficits or something more sinister?
Austerity is being imposed by the financial elite and the banksters, who, of
course, control much of the political process. It is a means for the
capitalists to generate more profits and to rollback working-class gains. It
is a rational process, an excuse to sovereign debt and deficits, and I think
most people understand that. The problem is that few politicians are willing
to speak out on behalf of the people and against the elite.
You were involved in the Occupy movement. What do you consider to be the
most important aspect of Occupy?
Occupy brought to the forefront the reality of economic inequality and made
it a central component of political debate in the country. Occupy went
further than previous resistance movements by naming an enemy: the richest
1%, the financial elite that buys politicians and gets itself bailed out by
the government while the rest of us, the 99%, are paying for the costs of
the bailouts and getting ripped off by those at the top of the economic
pyramid.
However, figuring out a strategy for change requires that we get to the root
of the problem of inequality, class and power in society. It requires a
deeper understanding of the political economy of capitalism. Working people
produce the vast wealth of society, but we only receive a small part of that
in wages, while the capitalists extract huge profits from our labor. So the
challenge is the re-emergence of the labor movement as a serious force in US
society. A labor movement that sees the working people as a central force to
change the world and end all forms of oppression and exploitation. So the
task is of a double nature: to promote unions, as they are the strongest
organizations we have to improve our living standards, and to fight to
transform unions. Rebuilding unions as fighting organizations requires,
again, building an alternative to the present dominant structure. [It
requires] vision and strategy in labor.
What is socialism for you?
Socialism is the vision of a global society that allows a high standard of
living in a sustainable manner without oppression and exploitation.
Socialism is by definition an international project as it is nearly
impossible to be established and thrive in a national setting. A socialist
nation in a capitalist sea will result in the deformities that socialism
experienced in places like the Soviet Union. So, as socialists, we must
always work for the spread of socialism throughout the world and not confine
our activities to our own local or national setting.
Are you implying then that the trend toward world socialism is a
prerequisite for the realization of the socialist vision?
Yes, because no single country can have all the necessary resources to
sustain itself and run a socialist economy. The history of socialism teaches
us that capitalist countries will do everything in their power to
strangulate a socialist nation. But, obviously, socialism has to start from
somewhere. And this is what we are trying to do in Seattle for the United
States.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
C.J. Polychroniou
C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has
taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the
United States. His main research interests are in European economic
integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and
the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a
regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public
Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have
appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news
websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign
languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish
and Turkish.
Related Stories
How Seattle City Council Is Fighting the TPP's Fast-Track: An Interview With
Kshama Sawant
By Thom Hartmann, The Thom Hartmann Program | Video InterviewEconomic
Update: Sawant in Seattle
By Richard D. Wolff, Truthout | Audio SegmentSeattle Led the Country's
Minimum Wage Revolution. Can It Do the Same With Rent Control?
By Marcus Harrison Green, YES! Magazine | News Analysis
Show Comments
