Originally published at: Are Zohran Mamdani and Katie Wilson Democratic Socialists or FDR Democrats? They Are Both
Between now and next year’s midterm elections, the “S” word, and even the “C” word, are going to get a workout. President Trump and his allies have called New York’s socialist mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani a Communist, a Marxist, a terrorist, and even a jihadist. They’re warning that the U.S. is experiencing a wave of “socialism,”…
I’m a neoliberal who strongly supports socialist politicians. Politics is the slow boring of hard boards. The socialist politicians want to bore through a hundred boards, and I’d prefer to stop at fifty. But the boring is very slow, and we shall have a common project for a long time. The socialist politicians are bringing a lot of energy into our joint endeavor–my fellow neolibs are tired and stale.
I want to stress the phrase “socialist politicians:” practical people who are willing to settle for what they can get. These people seek to expand the envelope of the possible, and realize that the expansion will be far slower than everybody wants. I don’t have much use for the purity pony branch of socialism, whose greatest joy in life is sacrificing the practical folk on the altar of ideology.
7 Likes
I am all for any politician who understands the simple idea that “power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few”.
5 Likes
It’s way past time for Democrats to fight fire with fire. We have plenty of labels and themes to describe the party of Trump MAGATS (Trump Supporters) that we should be forcefully talking about right now. I would spend the precious time writing about that.
2 Likes
While I agree with most of your post, it must be noted that Bernie Sanders and from what I know Zohran Mamdani and Katie Wilson are not “Socialists”. By definition, a socialist believes that government should own the means of production. I know of no elected official who is saying that the Government should own the means of production-nationalize any let alone all business and that all business should be run by the Government.
The term “Democratic Socialist” is designed to avoid arguing with someone calling you a socialist. That is instead of allowing policy arguments to be demagogued and the issue changed from policy to an esoteric argument about the meaning of Socialism, Bernie and others are like fine, I am a socialist, now lets move on to the policy.
1 Like
“The lesson for Democrats is not that all or even most of their candidates should run as democratic socialists, but that they should embrace policy ideas that help Americans who are worried about making ends meet, concerned about the widening wealth and income divide, and upset that our democracy is being gutted by billionaires.”
Yes, for sure Democrats need to learn to not run away from the issues and positions that help everyday Americans, but also are overwhelmingly supported by majorities of Americans. But..for the love of God, can we also, either as a political party or in the very least as a voting bloc, please answer the shouts of “socialism” with the very real fact that those doing the shouting are the biggest recipients of socialism!!
Quick examples are red states and their elected officials. We all know that red states are the biggest beneficiaries of federal transfers (i.e., welfare). To be brutally honest, the states of Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Kentucky would not exist without federal money directly deposited into their state budgets. Texas relies on a larger percentage of federal transfers than Illinois, New York, or California. There is no chance that Texas would ever let Illinois live it down if the roles were reversed. The problem is nobody knows that Texas is a welfare queen and that’s only because the Democrats for the life of them cannot reason an argument to hullabaloo.
It’s not just states, either. People, literally people like farmers, cops, union members, so many people who daily enjoy the benefits of their socialist paycheck, or their social pension, who are the first to cry socialism when “the others” may benefit as well. Every day we hear about bailing out the farmers, or better yet, bailing out foreign farmers, as if that’s the capitalist way to intervene. Paying farmers not to work is just as socialist as paying people in the projects not to work. Or how about we pay school teachers like we pay police officers?? Oh no, I know I’ve touched a nerve on both sides with that one.
So, yes, again I will say Dems need to learn the lessons of winning. Even more so, they need to learn the subtle art of not giving a fuuuuck.
8 Likes
There are, and have been since the 19th c., many definitions/notions of “socialism.” Yours is just one, and it sounds more like the penultimate stage in communism, before the government withers away, than the kinds of socialism advocated by a Mamdani or Seattle’s major-elect Katie Wilson. Btw, whatever it might have meant to “own the means of production” in the midst of 19th-century industrialism, in our post-industrial economy it’s not clear what it would mean. Sanders, AOC, Mamdani, et al. don’t talk that way because they don’t think that way.
No, it is not. It is a serious, robust assertion of the people’s sovereignty.
I completely disagree with mch’s comment. A rose by any name is still a rose and not a rose being called a rose still does not make it a rose. Furthermore, without a frame of reference that above all includes definitions of words, it is impossible to have any serious discussion on any issue.
In order to have any serious discussion, you need a frame of reference that includes agreed definitions.
For example, serious economists look to Wealth of Nations to define Capitalism. And by the way, if you do look that definition of Capitalism published in 1776, what Trump and Republicans currently support is not Capitalism because according to Wealth of Nations, Capitalism requires strong public schools supported by the Government.
But I digress, you can call anything anything but that does not make it true. To call someone a Socialist who does not believe the Government should own the means of production is not true anymore then it is true to call someone a Capitalist who opposes public schools. The point is inconsistency is the providence of hypocrites, demagogues and criminals and I stand by my statement that Bernie Sanders, Mamdani and Wilson are not Socialists because to my knowledge they do not believe the Government should own the means of production.
As a long-time Seattleite, I’ll point out that our electricity comes from a publicly owned entity, our water/sewer/garbage is run by a publicly owned entity, and there is a LOT of housing that is publicly owned. All of those employ private entities at some level to accomplish their goals, but there are no investors taking a cut from those utilities that we all have to use, other than bond-holders.
To me, that should be a model for everywhere, as all profits go to the public instead of investors.
The lesson for democrats is that they should stop reading articles that focus on what to name a politician. Follow what is proposed and see if it is doable. All of us went to school and know the definitions.The news media love shortcuts and big headlines. I guess saying we all believe in a mixed economy doesn’t generate clicks.
2 Likes
Have to keep pushing the Overton Window to the left. So Democrats can fill in the hole on the right that Republicans have dug for the Country.
Okay, stand by it and ignore the history of socialist theories and schools.
As for Adam Smith, yes, his work remains foundational but is hardly the final word on capitalism among economists since. (Given that Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, we should hardly expect otherwise.)
Errr, perhaps your definition works in the U.S., where it’s used as a Boo Baby intended to scare the masses, it’s not what I’ve seen in the other places I’ve lived around the world with so-called “Western values”.
So, please tell me what you’d label the following:
A functioning society can consist of workers, owners of capital and management employed by capitalists to ensure smooth functioning between the various parts. BUT, left to their own devices, members of ANY of these three groups can seek to dominate the others, so what you need is a functioning government, built with input from all players, which is tasked with ensuring that the rights and interests of the three groups are kept in balance. By ensuring an effective and successful on-going social order, this government ensures Social Order is preserved.
To me, this is a functioning Socialist system, and one that the U.S. would do well to adopt if and when you ever get around to upgrading the U.S. system of government to Democracy v2.0…
1 Like
The term for that is communism.
1 Like
So, please tell me what you’d label the following:
A functioning society can consist of workers, owners of capital and management employed by capitalists to ensure smooth functioning between the various parts. BUT, left to their own devices, members of ANY of these three groups can seek to dominate the others, so what you need is a functioning government, built with input from all players, which is tasked with ensuring that the rights and interests of the three groups are kept in balance. By ensuring an effective and successful on-going social order, this government ensures Social Order is preserved.
I call the above a Capitalist society. The problem is, what the American right calls a Capitalism is really Feudalism, where there are a few superrich with all the power and everyone else is fighting for their trickles. To be sure, the title of this article discusses "Democratic Socialists or FDR Democrats. Before FDR, America and much of the world was more industrial Feudalist than Capitalist.
I mean does anyone else remember T E Ford’s song:
“You load 16 tons and what you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me for I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store”.
That was Feudalism and not Capitalism.
The problem with Socialism is that it is a hard definition whereas Capitalism, at least as defined by Adam Smith, has parameters or characteristics which allow for variation of what is best for a certain time under certain circumstances. It is why Capitalism is more suited for democracy than other systems that have hard definitions without room for disagreement.
Or to put another way, Capitalism is less of an ideology than is Socialism or Feudalism and more of combination of whatever works best for the time. That is far from creating an ideology, Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations described what had and was evolving from Feudalism and what needed to happen, including the role of Government, for this new and evolving system to thrive.
As has been pointed out, having written in 1776, obviously by today’s terms Adam Smith would be far to the right on the political scale because if he wasn’t, his book would have been condemned and he as well and perhaps to death.
So well the Government making automobiles would not be Capitalism and Ford making automobiles is not Socialism, there is room in Capitalism for most of what is in Socialism including if not especially public schools and I believe universal healthcare and other rolls for the Government.
AI Summary
To understand the difference between socialism and communism, consider the following points:
- Ownership of Resources: Socialism advocates for collective or state ownership of production, while communism seeks complete communal ownership without private property.
- Economic System: Socialism allows for a mixed economy with some private enterprise, whereas communism aims for a classless, stateless society with no private enterprise.
- Distribution of Wealth: Socialism focuses on equitable distribution of wealth through reforms, while communism envisions a system where wealth is distributed based on need.
- Political Structure: Socialism can coexist with democratic governance, while communism often involves a single-party state to enforce its principles.
- Implementation: Socialism can be implemented gradually through reforms, whereas communism typically requires a revolutionary overthrow of the existing system.
- Historical Context: Socialism has various forms and interpretations, while communism is often associated with Marxist-Leninist ideology.
1 Like
I have zero respect for people who use AI to respond to questions. I stand by my statement. Socialism has nothing to do with the means of production. It may involve the national government providing services that other places are provided by private companies.
There’s nothing socialist about the government taking ownership in a private company. There’s nothing socialist about the government strong-arming Intel and to giving them a percentage of their profits, or allowing Nvidia to sell to China If they give the US a percentage of each sale. That’s communism.
If you don’t agree with my definitions, that’s fine. Definitions are descriptive not prescriptive, but as long as most people who actually run for office call themselves socialist aren’t interested in nationalizing the means of production, I’m going to stand by my comment the socialism has nothing to do with the government owning the means of production.
Your post is very Donald Trump-totalitarian dictator-ish. It is literally right out of the book 1984, changing the meaning of words to satisfy your desires of the moment. I mean who died and made you God?
That is our discussion is literally “ORDER” versus “CHAOS”.
Without a frame of reference consistently applied, language and even math are merely tools for scoundrels and demagogues. I am using the frame of reference that is in dictionaries and right out of text books and your post says we follow what is in your head and disregard everything else.
As for my use of AI, I merely asked my computer to provide the difference between “Socialism” and “Communism”. To be sure, I already knew that Communism is a type of Socialism. The difference is Socialism like Capitalism does not address political systems whereas Communism is as much a political system as it is an economic system.
So whatever you think of my use of AI to explain a tangential topic, there can be no resolution, in fact there can be no truth, without agreed definitions consistently applied. The definitions I am referencing in these discussions are as old as the terms themselves and yours come from spur of the moment what’s in your head.
My methods of determining definitions are “orderly” and yours are called chaotic. While you may like the title lord of chaos which is a good definition of Donald Trump, I think it is better to be a servant of order.
I’m sorry for engaging. From now on I’ll let you just talk to the AI, rather than me.
Makes me nostalgic for the 1960’s, when Ivy League protagonists like William F. Buckley and John Kenneth Galbraith engaged in vicious but effete ideological duels. I believe Galbraith’s ideology is summed up in Samuelson & Nordhaus’s textbook: Economics, which was a standard college introduction to economics from the 1950’s to the 2000’s. The text advocated a mixed economy of balanced public and private sectors under a democratic government - regulated capitalism. Buckley found regulating capitalism was socialistic, like civil rights legislation, and anti-war activism. Nixon and Reagan took measures to stop this, reaching full extent under Trump. Much of the last fifty years is a history of these measures from Fox to the Federalist Society. It is a weakness of the Left that they have not recognized the effectiveness of these measures: baby steps, then big steps to un-freedom.
2 Likes