Socialism? Is that all you’ve got?
By Thoreau
The word “socialism” can mean many things to many people, anything from Western European style social welfare to state ownership of the means of production to the New Deal or the Great Society or a wide range of other usages. I’ll let those who know (or at least claim to know) more about the real meaning of the word have the debate over which usage is proper (mostly because I hate debates over whether somebody is using a politically-charged word correctly). Instead, I’ll engage the McCain rhetoric on its own terms.
McCain, just like Obama, believes that taxes should be levied for the purpose of funding social programs that redistribute income downwards. (We’ll leave aside, for the moment, the fact that both of them also believe that taxes should be levied for the purpose of funding a bloated military-industrial complex and other things that redistribute at least some of the income upward.) McCain and Obama may envision different forms and scopes for those programs, and those differences may or may not have profound consequences in practice. However, the McCain rhetoric is being employed to argue that just about any downward redistribution is a type of socialism. If it is (at least in McCain’s usage of the term) then McCain is a socialist. Maybe not as much of a socialist as Obama (we’ll leave aside welfare for the rich, for the moment) but a socialist nonetheless.
If the pinko pot wants to call the kettle red, well, have fun. One can argue that McCain is a lesser evil according to the manner in which he has framed the issue (leave aside welfare for defense contractors, because military spending isn’t actually spending, in the bipartisan consensus) but that’s about it. The party that expanded government spending for 8 years (even leaving aside military spending) and brought us the Medicare prescription drug benefit simply has no credibility on whining about redistribution. Of course, one could acknowledge this and still argue that at least McCain will spend less money on social programs (not so sure that’s true, and of course we’re leaving aside a whole pack of pachyderms in the room, but whatever). Still, the rhetoric as currently framed defies credibility. As McCain and Palin are currently framing the argument, any sort of redistributive social program is welfare and hence socialism (according to their usages, mind you–Gov. Palin, what do you think about Alaska’s oil fund?).
If Republicans actually want to run against redistribution, well, that would be a fascinating debate to have (especially if we can add upward redistribution to the list of evils) but that sort of debate is not on offer from either camp right now.
Comment by Bob Thompson —
October 29, 2008 @ 8:42 am
Since the term ’socialism’ is getting extensive use in the campaign, particularly from McCain supporters, your posing it for discussion is a good thing. Your analysis comparing and contrasting the competing parties and candidates is fair. I think Obama gets more grief because of the verbal expressions he sometimes uses and from what people make of some of his past associations. Other than those elements, not a lot of difference between the two.
My son already pounced on my use of the term and used the Alaska/Palin oil example which you referenced. Admittedly, the treatment of Alaska’s natural resources is for the collective benefit of the state’s citizens so the use of ’socialism’ to describe it is not out-of-bounds. My guess is that many people would consider this an improvement over the treatment of native Americans during the 19th century and earlier.
I don’t know if we are facing an inevitability in the long term here or not, but, if we are, I personally would prefer something along the order of Charles Murray’s idea of a few years back of a guaranteed minimum income annually for every resident and keep the government out of the specifics and management of areas like education and health care.
Comment by Potted Plant —
October 29, 2008 @ 10:05 am
Your post is 100% correct, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the “liberal media” are incapable or unwilling to present this sort of discussion, so a lot of people end up believing that there’s a real difference between McCain and Obama on these matters.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 29, 2008 @ 11:06 am
Potted Plant-
I think many of our commenters here would argue that there is a real difference between the candidates when it comes to social spending. And maybe there is, and maybe that difference is ample reason to vote for one over the other. Redistribution does come in different forms and at different levels and with different consequences. However, to suggest that McCain wants none of that icky redistribution, that it’s purely an Obama thing, is absolutely absurd.
Comment by absence of something —
October 29, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Personally, I don’t mind having my income redistributed if it means I have to step over fewer homeless people on my way to work. I know it’s more efficient to give to them directly, but sometimes I just don’t have enough change.
Comment by dhex —
October 29, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
If Republicans actually want to run against redistribution, well, that would be a fascinating debate to have
fascinating? shit, man, it’d mean the ayahuasca finally kicked in!
Comment by Joe Strummer —
October 29, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
The case against redistribution is very difficult to make be cause 1) everyone can see the wealth that is ripe for redistribution and 2) the primary case against redistribution is that it disincentivizes wealth creation that would produce all kinds of benefits to everyone, but that we presently can’t even contemplate.
Plus, there are so many other battles to fight that fighting the redistributive battle, especially when it puts me on the side of Wall Street Bankers who, when they’re not taking bailouts, rail against high marginal tax rates.
Very small differences in growth rates produce very large differences in wealth over time.
But, look, arguing about redistribution in a world where the government is giving $1 trillion to banks and another trillion to invade Iraq, and another half billion to invade Afghanistan, and another 3/4 trillion to put troops everywhere and anywhere, misses the point.
Which is all kind of saying what Thoreau said, in a way.
Comment by Joe Strummer —
October 29, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
I’m coming to think that an America that was a little less rich, might be an America that didn’t think its role was to police the world. To the extent that redistribution achieves that kind of world, I’d be on-board.
Comment by hf —
October 29, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
I think there is a category difference, and it’s contained in that phrase “spread the wealth”. The phrase implies that there’s something inherently wrong with concentration of wealth, and implies that distributing it is a worthy end in itself. That’s different (at least in principle) from saying that we need to raise revenue to pay for various programs, and then making the observation that it’s most realistic to extract revenue from people who have a lot of money.
McCain is completely unacceptable for other reasons, but he actually has a (small) point here.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 29, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
I agree with just about everything Joe Strummer said in #6, but I’m not sure about #7.
The observation about small differences in growth rates is an important one, but it comes most frequently from a section of the body politic that is either asking for bailouts or railing against taxes. That does not make the observation any less correct, but it makes for nasty politics.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 29, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Well, of course not. A poorer America would have less money for the poor. And we’re most likely headed for a poorer America for a little while, and our military won’t spontaneously shrink and our politicians won’t become anti-interventionists.
Comment by Potted Plant —
October 29, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
Thoreau — Thanks for the response. I didn’t mean to suggest that there are no differences between Obama and McCain on various social and other issues, including how they would “redistribute” the wealth. I just agreed with what I thought was the point of your post, which is that they are both “redistributionist,” and McCain’s campaign against Obama on that basis is therefore simply dishonest.
Comment by Jaybird —
October 29, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
Compassionate Conservativism is when we redistribute to people like us.
Socialism is when we redistribute to people like them.
Comment by Nell —
October 29, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
Of course it’s a dishonest tactic from McCain, since the word ’socialist’ is being completely removed from its meaning — used to characterize progressive taxation, taxation and social spending generally, and many other unremarkable, accepted features of democratic, capitalist-friendly government in a country with a market economy.
But many people are missing the point of the campaign’s seizing on this apparent recycyling of an ancient, tired right-wing attack that’s almost incomprehensible to voters under 30. It’s code to working-class whites, especially those 50 and over, for “he’s gonna take your money and give it to the n****rs.”
John Judis gets it. It’s the same not-so-coded message that was delivered by Wallace, Nixon, and Reagan. It’s lost its ability to deliver quite so massively as it used to, but it’ll have some effect.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 29, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Definitely. But even to many of them, it has to pale beside his taking their money to give to billionaires.
It’s a pathetically desperate tactic, and I don’t know who he really expects to go, “Oh Hell – the Democratic guy will give money to minorities?! I surely can’t vote for him now!”
Comment by Robert Hutchinson —
October 29, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
I love “pot calling the kettle red”. Not that I’m trying to say you could’ve just written a five-word blog post, Thoreau.
Comment by Kalkin —
October 30, 2008 @ 9:22 am
As someone who, well, claims to know the real meaning of the word ’socialism’, let me endorse this: http://socialistworker.org/2008/10/15/comrade-in-chief
Comment by Darren —
October 30, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Kalkin,
It would seem that by the definition of socialism in your article Hugo Chavez of Venezuela wouldn’t even qualify as one. I don’t know of anyone who has said that the red paratrooper isn’t a socialist, so your article’s definition of socialism is wrong. Let me remind you of Norman Thomas’ words:
I’m assuming that Thomas qualified as a socialist.
Stealth socialism is not only possible but the way it usually takes over.
Comment by Dr. Squid —
October 30, 2008 @ 11:30 am
According to them, it’s not socialism because they’re conservatives and conservatives would never do something that look like socialism so it can’t be socialism because conservatives say it’s not, also.
Maverick.
Comment by Goatboy Slim —
October 30, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
Someone should also point out that tax rates on the rich were at their highest (or close) in the 50″s ,and union membership was also at it’s highest then as well, and no one can say that the economy was negatively affected..Remember, the Middle class was carved out of the profits of the rich, and they want it back.
Comment by Lovemonger —
October 30, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
They don’t really care what it means. That’s the kind of deep thinking that appeals to them about as much as actually sitting down and reading the communist manifesto with Marx himself.
I think they’re again trying to redefine the very language we speak and make the word “socialist” have the same visceral effect as the word “liberal”.
Could even just be an attempt to ruin the word “social”. To make any attempt at collectively working together to fix what they worked so hard to break unacceptable and divisive.
We’ve seen them sneer at the words “community organizer”. The goals seems to be have everyone secluded in their dens watching FOX and worrying about anyone who doesn’t look exactly like the image they see when they walk by the mirror.
Comment by Lovemonger —
October 30, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
These words all get the exact same reaction:
Liberal
Taxes
Social
Peace
Unity
Gay
Muslim
Comment by Rhadamanthus —
October 31, 2008 @ 12:30 am
The trick, here, is using “socialism” as a euphemism for “communism”. It goes beyond the race-baiting code, it also brings back the old spectre of the Soviets. Equating liberals/Democrats to the commies was standard practice for them for a long, long time.
The fear they raise is: “Obama wants to change our government from Democracy to Socialism.” I saw an ‘undecided’ voter interviewed on CNN today who said just that.
Which is a clever little misdirection by conservatives. Socialism is not an alternative to democracy (never mind the fact that the USA is a republic). Socialism is an alternative to capitalism.
And it’s not even an either-or situation. It’s a broad scale. There are plenty of socialist countries which have democratic elections. They just care about the well-being of their people.
Comment by Nell —
October 31, 2008 @ 1:49 am
Rhadamanthus, the problem with that explanation is that it’s just a stupid, stupid tactic because only voters 50 and up really have any connection with the old cold war vibe.
Comment by Rhadamanthus —
October 31, 2008 @ 2:41 am
Nell, that’s right. At best, the commie-angle is playing to his base (the elderly). At worst, it’s an outdated meme, which is all the Republicans have left, anymore.
The problem is that socialist still has a natural negative implication, but without as much of the cheesy 80’s vibe.
Because of that, they’re still able to get parts of the generally uninformed electorate to think Obama/democrats/liberals want to change our government from a democratic republic into a socialist state… which just sounds alien to them. And that’s the whole point behind most Republican elections: “They’re different, and they want to change the way you live. We love America, we’re just like you. The only way for you and your family to feel safe is to vote for us.”
Comment by Bob Thompson —
October 31, 2008 @ 10:15 am
Rhadamanthus, I appreciate your argument but there are a couple of points you could elaborate on.
I’m in that elderly cohort and I know that there were plenty of communists and what we used to call fellow travelers when communism fell out of favor with most of the world late last century. Where are those people now in terms of our domestic politics?
In the discussion of democracy, socialism, and capitalism, I am reminded that an important aspect at our country’s founding was expressed as individual liberty and this is something I have always considered as a very important part of my American heritage and sometimes even something that distinguishes us from the rest of the western world. Since I consider individual economic freedom to be crucial to this concept, any further movement in our society toward socialism (not that we don’t have plenty already) is troubling.
I will not defend Republicans or the Bush administration since much of the difference with Democrats is rhetoric only. Finally, I think there are a multitude of ways to demonstrate caring for our fellow humankind without government coercion. Voluntary charitable actions by the people in this country exceed that of any other in the world, government or otherwise.
Comment by abb1 —
October 31, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Socialism is not an alternative to democracy … Socialism is an alternative to capitalism.
In fact, in current Newspeak ‘democracy’ is defined as ‘capitalist’ + ‘pro-American’.
Comment by Steven Taylor —
November 1, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Excellent post. This whole “socialism”/”redistribution” is just absurd.
Some more thoughts here.