It’s very interesting and revealing that Republicans would attack Democratic efforts to provide decent health care to millions of Americans who lack such health care by calling them “Socialism” and by calling anyone who advocates those efforts a “Socialist”. It’s the same old trick. They don’t dare try to argue their case on its merits. Indeed, there case has no merits that more than 15% of the American people would respect. If they tried to argue their case on its merits they would make themselves look like fools. So they resort to lying and name calling.

Calling someone a “Socialist” has a long political history in our country, and has often been politically effective. The logic works something like this. Joseph Stalin was a Communist. Socialism has something in common with Communism. Joseph Stalin was a terrible man and a mass murderer and responsible for our more than 40-year-long Cold War. Therefore, Socialists are terrible people who have no business participating in our government – or even living here.

There are truths and partial truths in that line of reasoning. But partial truths aren’t good enough. Nor is guilt by association good enough. In order to evaluate this line of attack, let’s begin by considering what Socialism is:


Socialism

There have been numerous strains of socialist thought put forth in recent centuries. A typical definition is this:


Note that socialism does not specifically refer to state ownership of the means of production and distribution. State ownership of the means of production and distribution would constitute socialism only if, and to the extent that the state truly represented the interests of the citizens of the state. If instead the state is a dictatorship or unduly influenced by corporate power rather than the majority of its people, then state ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods would more appropriately be termed tyranny than socialism. Even so, definitions like the one cited above don’t fully capture the root purpose of socialism.

Erich Fromm, in his book “The Sane Society” discusses socialism as clearly and thoroughly as anything I can recall reading. Fromm discusses several different schools of socialist thought, beginning with Francois Noel Babeuf, from the time of the French Revolution in the late 18th Century.

Fromm notes the central core of socialist philosophy as advocating the welfare of humankind, rather than any specific economic or materialist goals. To the extent that specific economic/materialist goals are advocated, they are advocated as a means to an end. The end goal is satisfying the needs – spiritual as well as material – of humankind. Fromm cites Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as the best embodiment of this idea. He says that to Proudhon:



To those who attack government sponsored plans to provide for universal health care by calling it “Socialism”

As I said, the insurance industry and their bought-and-paid-for politicians in the Republican Party (and some in the Democratic Party as well) try to scare us by telling us that publicly provided health insurance is socialism, and that it will therefore result in catastrophic consequences if it gets implemented here.

Well, to that I have this to say: They’re right about one thing. Publicly provided health insurance IS socialism – as is Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, public schools, public highways, and so many other things that we currently have and need. They can’t get rid of all these things for the simple reason that so many of them have been so successful. And they know that a good public health insurance plan will be a great victory for socialism and the American people, and a great defeat for their own plans.

Indeed, so popular are these things that this is what Republican President Eisenhower had to say about them in a letter he wrote to his brother on the subject:


He didn’t use the word “socialism” in that letter. But that sure as hell is what he was talking about.


A Socialist in the U.S. Senate

Because of the highly pejorative meaning given to the word “socialism” in the United States, few American politicians, even those who have adhered to a fair number of socialist principles, have admitted to being a Socialist. And those who have admitted to it have not fared well politically.

But in November 2006, Bernie Sanders became the first admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate. And not only that, but he won against a Republican opponent who was nearly a billionaire and who possibly spent more money on that election, per voter, than any previous Senate election in U.S. history. And furthermore, he won in a landslide, with 65% of the vote – a greater margin of victory than any U.S. President has ever claimed in a presidential election. I think that Bernie Sanders’ political rise is well worth recounting.

Let’s compare Bernie Sanders’ political career to that of George W. Bush. Sanders’ political rise was far less meteoric than that of George W. Bush. Nor has he risen as high – if you consider being rated as the worst president in U.S. history “high”. But Sanders had two great political disadvantages compared to Bush. First, he didn’t have any relatives who were previous U.S. presidents, or who had attained a position remotely comparable to that. And second, he didn’t receive hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate donations, or anything comparable to that.

So Sanders started out slowly. Some might have even considered him a “loser”. He first ran for the U.S. Senate from Vermont in 1972, obtaining 2.2% of the vote as the Liberty Union Party candidate. Between 1972 and 1976 he ran for the U.S. Senate or for Governor of Vermont four times, eventually reaching a vote total as high as 6%.

So in 1979 he decided to set his sites a little lower, running for Mayor of Burlington, Vermont. He won by 12 in a four-way race… that is 12 votes, not 12%. But notwithstanding the slimness of his victory, it was a turning point in his political career – for a very simple reason. From then on, his lack of family connections and lack of corporate donations were offset by something else, which apparently many Vermonters considered more important: his record in office. He went on to win three more terms as Mayor of Burlington, defeating a candidate endorsed by both major parties in 1987.

In 1988 Sanders ran for the U.S. House of Representative seat vacated by Jim Jeffords, losing in a close election to a Republican Lieutenant Governor of Vermont. Two years later he ran against the same man, beating him in an upset landslide victory – by 16% -- becoming the first independent member of the U.S. House since 1950. He then went on to be re-elected to the House 7 times, all by double digits except in 1994, when the Republican Party pulled off a national landslide to take control of Congress. Then, based on his 16 year performance in the House he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 by a landslide, to become the first admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate – again taking a seat vacated by Jim Jeffords.


Sanders’ political positions

In order to get an idea of how Socialism works in our country, let’s consider some of the political positions that Sanders has espoused:

Health care
From Sanders’ web site:


A more general indication of Sanders’ position on health care is what he said in an interview with Amy Goodman:


As noted above, the central issue in Socialism is “The building of a political order which is expressive of society itself”. Health care is one of the most important resources a nation has to offer, since peoples’ very lives often depend on it. How could our political order be expressive of society when so many of its members lack access to this life-giving resource?

Corporate control of the news media
From Sanders’ web site:


Thus, Sanders’ position on corporate control of the news media is essentially equivalent to his desire to preserve our First Amendment right of freedom of the press – a right without which it is impossible for our political order to express the needs of our society.

Wall Street greed
As a U.S. Congressman from Vermont in 1999, Sanders opposed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, thus allowing the merging of commercial and investment banks. The passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act led to windfall profits for the financial industry and helped set the stage for our current financial crisis – which was the main reason why Sanders and other liberals opposed it.

In November 2008, Sanders introduced the Stop the Greed on Wall Street Act, which would have limited executive compensation for banks receiving government bailout funds. Though his measure died in committee, a similar act was passed when proposed by the new Democratic President in 2009.

Sanders was a stalwart opponent for the plans to bailout failing banks, under both the Republican administration in 2008 and the Democratic administration in 2009. Both were widely criticized by most credible economists who lacked ties to Wall Street. Typical of the criticisms of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s plan were those provided by James Galbraith:


And more recently, Sanders put Wall Street greed and its effects in perspective for the American people:


Global warming
The first bill Sanders introduced as a member of the U.S. Senate, with Senator Boxer, was the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. The proposed legislation required aggressive policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage energy efficient technologies and the use of sustainable energy sources, including solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy.

It was supported by several environmental groups. The Sierra Club said that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 80% by 2050 and would greatly help stabilize global temperatures.

The Iraq War
From Sanders’ web site:


When asked in an interview with Amy Goodman why he believes that we should withdraw from Iraq, Sanders said:


I believe that’s the first time I heard an American politician emphasize the wishes of the Iraqi people in explaining why we should withdraw our military from their country. And Sanders is absolutely correct about this. The Iraqi people have very much wanted us out of their country for a very long time.

On the need for straight talk
From a 2006 article by Michael Powell in the Washington Post:



Sanders on economic social justice issues

In his interview with Amy Goodman Sanders talked about socialism in terms of economic justice:


He noted that these issues should be important to poor, working and middle class Republicans, as well as Democrats:


On his web site, Sanders puts the current status of our economy in perspective:


And he proposes solutions to benefit all Americans, not just the wealthy:



Senator Sanders defends socialism

What all of the above positions advocated by Bernie Sanders have in common is, as I quoted from Proudhon earlier in this post, “the building of a political order which is expressive of society itself”. Each is a position that benefits society as a whole, and that most Americans favor, often at the expense of the rich and powerful. So… what’s so terrible about that?

As the U.S. Senate’s first and only Socialist, Sanders is often asked – or challenged – to defend socialism. When Amy Goodman asked him, “What do you mean, Socialist?” Sanders responded:


Sanders also recently defended Socialism is his own article, in which he pointed out that the system under which we currently live is very far from the heaven on earth that so many defenders of the status quo portray it to be:



The bottom line

But most of all, as Sanders noted in his interview with Amy Goodman, he equates Socialism with democracy itself. That makes sense since democracy, like socialism, is meant to promote “the building of a political order which is expressive of society itself”. Each of Sanders’ positions, as discussed in this post, are pro-democracy positions. His complaint about corporate control of our news media arises from his recognition that democracy cannot exist without a free press. His expressed concern about the opinions of ordinary Iraqis regarding our occupation of their country arises from his genuine belief that Iraqis deserve democracy (i.e. the right to control their own destiny) as much as Americans do. His passionate pro-democracy views also express themselves in his hatred of the excessive influence of money on the political direction of our country:


Why is it then that Socialism has for so long been such a pejorative term in our country? I’ve discussed this issue in depth in other posts. But in a nutshell, the simple truth is that those with a strong interest in maintaining their wealth and power at the expense of everyone else have worked very hard to make it a term of abuse. FDR spoke of this issue at the 1936 Democratic National Convention, without mentioning the word “Socialism”:


What FDR described there was the kind of capitalism that existed in our country that led to the Great Depression of the 1930s – the kind of capitalism that existed here before FDR’s own New Deal changed the rules and led to what Paul Krugman calls “the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history”. But with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, which led to the gradual dismantling of FDR’s New Deal, and thus to the greatest income inequality in U.S. history (Scroll down and see graph), we find ourselves once again with that toxic brew of pre-FDR type of capitalism.

Perhaps Senator Sanders best puts his Socialist beliefs in perspective when he says on his own web site: