Tag socialism

The “S” Word

Every time some right-wing nutjob starts spouting off about Barack Obama being a socialist, you can be sure that they have no fucking clue about either socialism OR Obama. Which is what makes this recent Huffington Post article by conservative law scholar Jedediah Purdy embracing America’s “socialist” tradition worth reading. Purdy backs off from the absurd rhetoric of the contemporary right, which asserts that anything that isn’t pure laissez faire free market pro-corporatist ideology must be the work of Satan, and remembers that ideas about reforming economic inequality, regulating unbridled capitalism, and sharing the benefits of democratic society were once upon a time as cherished by conservatives as they were liberals. Considering that the gaggle of morons duking it out this week in Iowa and New Hampshire seem only interested in out-shrieking one another about who can destroy America the fastest, it is reassuring to learn that there are some voices on the other side who aren’t quite so ready to jump off the cliff with them.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Shades Of Red

Okay, let’s get this over with once and for all: Barack Obama is not a socialist. The Democratic Party is not the Soviet Politburo. Even the most left-leaning member of Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders, is only a little bit socialist, even though he used to call himself socialist back in his days as mayor of Burlington, VT. Mainstream American politics is firmly entrenched in the center-right, and only because the noise from the extreme right has gotten so loud that the whole kit and kaboodle has shifted rightwards does anyone even remotely centrist look like Lenin.

You know it’s gotten out of hand when the Socialist Party USA itself has to send out press releases pointing out this basic fact and reminding everyone that the health care reform legislation jut passed is nowhere close to what real socialists have proposed.

This piece from OpenLeft.com blogger David Sirota tries to further parse out the differences between the more common left-leaning political labels “liberal” and “progressive” in the context of American politics. Because the conservatives were so thoroughly successful in their effort to make the word “liberal” a pejorative (which is what brought them to having to call Obama a “socialist” in the first place), many liberals rebranded themselves as “progressives”, but Sirota argues that there is indeed a fundamental difference between the two, although he finally concludes that you cannot have one without the other.

A similar distinction is at the core of this article at Dissent Magazine by the noted scholar Michael Bérubé, wherein he describes a correspondence with someone over his latest book (via 3QuarksDaily. The person made the distinction between the “liberal” mainstream leftism of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and the clearer traditional “leftism” of Noam Chomsky. Bérubé refutes his correspondent’s observation, putting Chomsky more in the camp of contrarianists, citing the social theorist Stuart Hall as perhaps a better example of the left as alternative to the right rather than just a critical mirror (Hall was influential in British Labour Party politics in the Thatcher era), but I think his refutation helps further refine the spectrum.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Michael Foot

The Labour Party of Britain was born in 1900 as the confederation of three labor-oriented political parties, and stood as the bastion of the establishment left in British politics for most of the 20th century. Though Labour led the government a number of times, the ascendancy of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives in the 1980s diminished the party’s political strength and popularity. The leader of Labour in the early 1980s was Michael Foot, who passed away this week at the age of 96. The disastrous election loss in 1983 shook up Labour, forced out Foot, and led to the rise of Tony Blair and what is called “New Labour” — a more centrist, if not outright conservative, platform that has held the government since the mid-1990s (although it is widely expected that the Conservatives are likely to return to power in the next general election).

In reading the several obituaries and blog posts I ran across, I was most impressed by this quote from Foot that reminded me very of why there was, and still is, a need for social democratic politics and political parties, not just in the U.K. but all over the world:

“We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. The is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer, to hell with them. the top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.”

British and American liberal politicians alike need to be shaken from their from their cozy alliances with “the top” and restored to their roots as the champions of the working man. The passing of Foot, like the passing of Ted Kennedy, reminds us that there are too few people like them left.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

We’re All Socialists Now

The Republican Party has spent the last 20 years transforming the word “liberal” into a slur and has been so successful that liberals themselves have struggled to find a replacement for that term. It seems that “progressive” has won out as the most commonly used substitute, although whenever I hear anybody use that term to describe their politics, I presume they are too spineless to own up to the real definition of liberal in the first place. John F. Kennedy’s timeless quote is the touchstone that I personally always look to when I want or need to define liberal to anyone:

“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal.’”

It is possible to reclaim the word, of course. African-Americans have reclaimed a word that never had a positive connotation in the first place, “nigger”, and turned it into a subversive idea that throws the hatred of its original use back in the face of those who would use it and at the same time reframes it as an expression of solidarity. The transformation of the word “gay” is so complete that it has lost any of the negative connotations it was meant to convey and has simply become the standard term, but the gay community has similarly reclaimed the word “queer”.

Since the results of the 2008 election demonstrate a clear trend back toward liberalism, the Republicans have had to turn up the heat a little bit. The early actions of the Obama Administration to deal with the banking debacle found Republicans and other right-wingers trotting out the term “Socialist” to apply to the TARP bailout, and that worked so well in their echo chamber of madness, they’ve decided to run with it. The Republican Party has decided, against the objections of its own chairman Michael Steele, to refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democratic Socialist Party” in all of its official communication and in talking points for the media. According to that report, they are going so far as to convene a special meeting of the RNC next week to enact this resolution, making it official policy of the Republican Party, and also delivering a great big “Fuck you, nigger!” to Michael Steele in the process.

Calling Barack Obama, a thoroughly middle-of-the-road politician who shows no inclination toward anything resembling liberal politics, a “Socialist” was ridiculous in the first place. Applying that term to the entire Democratic Party, which, like the Republican Party, has so many corporate lobbyists up its ass that all they can see is the first guy’s shoes, transcends ridiculousness. But that’s the state of affairs in the GOP these days: “let’s take the most outrageously stupid thing we can do and do it harder.”

I’m sure you’ve probably read by now, though, that 20% of the American public now thinks socialism is probably a better idea than capitalism, and that among voters under 30 that shoots up to 33%. And, at the same time, the percentage of people willing to identify themselves as Republicans to a national pollster is down to around 20%. So maybe the Republicans could take a clue from those polls and jump on the Socialist bandwagon. If they did, they could double their numbers overnight!

Of course, they’d need to rebrand themselves a little bit. “Republican Socialist” just doesn’t have a ring to it, but Republicans like to paint themselves as the “defenders of the nation”, so maybe they could go with “National Socialists”. Hey! I think that works! Check it out:

Democratic Socialist National Socialist

Real Democratic Socialism as embodied by the Socialist Party USA is quite a different beast entirely from the “free handouts to the rich and powerful” socialism that the Republicans are complaining about. You’d also have a very hard time pegging social democracy to the excesses of the Soviet state and its satellites. In practice, social democracy long ago became the norm in Western Europe and learned to play nice with the status quo, while establishing broad-based social welfare systems that have made people throughout the EU better educated, given then better medical care, and improved their standards of living to rival or exceed those of Americans. So maybe it’s a pretty good deal to be a Democratic Socialist. And if you can’t deal with being called a “Socialist”, I guess “liberal” is probably up for grabs again now that the Republicans have moved on from it.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site