Socialism And The Politics Of Fear

Frank Llewellyn: Republicans And Their Media Allies Never Really Define What They Mean By Socialism

(CBS)  Frank Llewellyn is the national director of Democratic Socialists of America.

"Socialism" is now an active part of the Republican lexicon, among the litany of routine charges to be trotted out whenever they cannot come up with a substantive critique of policy initiatives they oppose. Beginning with a steady drumbeat from the far-right blogosphere during last year's Democratic primary campaign, Republicans have attacked health care reform and modest progressive tax reform proposals as somehow "un-American," "European," and, God-forbid, "socialist!"

When the Republicans lost the election and the Obama administration filled its Treasury positions with former Goldman Sachs executives, we socialists thought that was the end of these baseless charges. But when the Republicans found themselves with nothing to say about how to shore-up an economy in free-fall, they deemed the stimulus bill socialist - even though the architect of such policies, John Maynard Keynes, advocated a capitalist economic system.

Republicans and their media allies never really define what they mean by socialism. To some, it is an expansion in government spending (although many capitalist nations funnel more of their GDP through the public sector than the U.S. does). This past February, Fox TV host Glen Beck informed me on the air that Canada must be a socialist country because it had a universal health care system. That would be news to Canada's socialist New Democratic Party, which has occasionally held power at the provincial level but has never won a federal election.

Whatever their definition of socialism is, the term is gaining currency among some Republicans as a form of blanket condemnation of the President and Democratic reform proposals. Just yesterday, RNC Chair Michael Steele declared definitively that Obama's health plan represented socialism, even though the Obama proposals most closely resemble the universal health insurance scheme of Germany - last we knew, an avowedly capitalist nation.

All this Republican chatter is letting me make a living telling people that Obama and his administration are not socialist - and as National Director of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the United States' largest socialist organization, I ought to know. Just, like the New Deal-era Roosevelt haters, these Republicans erroneously term a president who is trying to save capitalism from itself a socialist.

Contemporary democratic socialists want to mitigate the many adverse impacts that unregulated capitalist markets have on the lives of ordinary people by supporting intelligent democratic regulation of the economy (particularly the financial sector) and by using progressive taxation to finance high-quality public goods that can satisfy all citizens' basic needs for health care, education, unemployment insurance, and job training. We do not wish to destroy markets for consumer goods or to confiscate personal property. Rather, we want to establish efficient government regulation of financial markets so that ordinary citizens can secure stable financing for the purchase of such important personal property as an affordable home.

In other developed democracies, national health care systems are so popular that once they have been established it is politically impossible to eliminate them. In a recent Gallup poll, while only fifty-seven percent of United States residents said they were satisfied with their health care, over seventy-five percent of Canadians and Western Europeans said they would not trade their health care system for the current U. S. model. That is the real reason that Republicans are trying to sow doubt and prevent passage of a national health care bill: they want to protect the for-profit health care and pharmaceutical industries.

American socialists (and many more non-socialists, including 86 members of Congress) support HR 676, John Conyers' Medicare for All single-payer national health plan, which would replace the private insurance industry with a government agency but would preserve personal choice of physician and hospital care.

We socialists are deeply suspicious of the Democratic Party leadership proposals for health care. We worry that these proposals lack a sufficiently robust public insurance option to provide an effective check on the private insurers. Any comparative analysis of health care systems indicates that the greater the role of private, for-profit health insurance companies in the delivery of health care, the higher the cost. This is why the United States has the most expensive healthcare system in the world but trails well behind on crucial indicators of public health, such as infant mortality, longevity, and death of women in childbirth.

The insurance companies don't like the Democratic leadership plan because in theory they might have to face effective competition from a public insurance option. Democratic socialists don't trust the insurance companies enough to keep them in the health insurance market. But President Obama does, which makes it much more likely that the pay-or-play predominantly private insurance plan we distrust is likely to pass. So exactly how does that put the President in a "cabal," to use Michael Steele's word, to advance socialist goals?

This socialist-baiting is more than just name-calling. We are in the middle of a prolonged economic crisis brought on by unrestrained and unregulated capitalism. Since it arose from a crisis in the banking and housing sectors, this economic crisis in particular cannot be solved by normal market mechanisms. There is not sufficient private purchasing power to rejuvenate demand, and capital markets remain very tight. Financial institutions are unwilling to renegotiate under-water mortgages and are even reducing credit lines to borrowers with strong credit ratings.

Absent government efforts to strengthen the rights of working people and organized labor, we face the likelihood of another jobless recovery and declining wages. The devastating decline in value of pensions, retirement accounts and housing means that many near retirement age and even many not so near to retirement will not be able to retire on schedule - and certainly not with dignity and security.

If the United States fails to democratically restructure its economy, we face a future of increased inequality and poverty. But the constant drumbeat of right-wing "socialist-baiting" makes it less likely that this administration will consider the public initiatives - such as investments in alternative energy, education, and health care - that could engender productive jobs at good wages.

Reactionary forces have always utilized anti-socialism to oppose democratic reforms that constrain corporate power. Corporate America tried to red-bait Social Security, the GI Bill, and Medicare. But ordinary Americans rejected the politics of fear, and reforms passed that significantly improved the lives of average Americans. It will take Americans once again rejecting mindless anti-socialism to create sufficient support for the extensive reforms needed to address this deep and systemic economic crisis.

[scubbasteve01]

Socialism and the politics of being represented by the TOKEN black guy and NEVER really explaining to America what you mean by '' socialism'' and JUMPING every single story in the direction of Obama without getting ALL of the facts of the story before you open your mouth to the public to express an opinion.

[obamasnotasocialistbutiam]

Oh, it's quite clear where the idiocy is coming from in this little exchange.

Newsflash to the pro-capitalists: when the government intervenes on behalf of the capitalist class in order to prevent their institutions (i.e. banks, auto companies) from going under, that ain't socialism: that's STATE CAPITALISM. And the fact that the government HAS to bail out these firms in order to prevent the whole economy from going under is proof positive that your beloved "free" market DOES. NOT. WORK.

Other little fact: real capitalists don't believe in free markets either. They WANT government intervention: they just want it FOR THEM, not for the working class. And usually, they get what they want; after all, the state is their state. (I'm sure some of you think a stateless capitalism is possible. Question: if there's no state, who's gonna enforce the contracts?)

Sorry, folks, but interdependence is a fact of life and collectivization is inevitable. Real socialists want this collectivization to be democratic and participatory and cooperative, with workplaces managed by their workers and the inevitable planning of the economy to be from the bottom up. The only alternative is an authoritarian "planned economy" run by private business. Free market capitalism is dead. Deal with it.

Oh, and no real socialist anywhere in the world believes Obama to be one of us. It's a laughable idea.

[Riconservative]

"Republicans and their media allies "

Thanks for the laugh...there was no need to read another word after this little bit of idiocy...ROTFLMAO...you really are delusional.

[jhenry3107]

You can either Lease or buy a new car to use the cash for clunkers program. It has to be new vehicles and not used ones.

Jhenry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info

[bill517]

Collectivism, whatever it is called, is just an intellectual pablum used by astute politicians for tactical political purposes.

[LDHouston]

The Author here seems to want us all to believe that our President has never been affiliated with any socialist group...how clever of him. The problem is that any of us could research it ourselves and find Obama's involvement in the Chicago DSA...www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html and think the Author's claim invalid. For years I didn't identify myself as belonging to a specific party, I tried to understand from many perspectives...but here lately I am becoming more and more resentful of our President's agenda. I am becoming more and more opposed to my financial independence and personal health care being directed by those that believe they should have a bigger piece of my pie. You take care of you and I'll take care of me. You earn your dollar and spend it as you wish and I'll do the same with mine, but you do not have the right to my dollar. Please be a good citizen and pay for yourself.

[kunosoura]

This has nothing to do woth "political titles", it's a ruse for the stupid people. There is no "2-party" system in america, it's the get elected at any cost party; stay in the elite, ruling fat cat class. All of the "leftist, socialist, communist, pinkoes, ad nauseam" is just cover for those that want to steal from the people. They've managed to use TV "news" & propaganda to keep the electorate focused on meaningless trivia. The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: (1) the growth of democracy, (2) the growth of corporate power, and (3)the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy. The big corporations won because of americans' apathy or they voted contrary to their own interests. Fudalistic plutocracy follows.

[kunosoura]

This has nothing to do woth "political titles", it's a ruse for the stupid people. There is no "2-party" system in america, it's the get elected at any cost party; stay in the elite, ruling fat cat class. All of the "leftist, socialist, communist, pinkoes, ad nauseam" is just cover for those that want to steal from the people. They've managed to use TV "news" & propaganda to keep the electorate focused on meaningless trivia. The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: (1) the growth of democracy, (2) the growth of corporate power, and (3)the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy. The big corporations won because of americans' apathy or they voted contrary to their own interests. Fudalistic plutocracy follows.

[sfcmac2]

RE:Frank Llewellyn: Republicans And Their Media Allies Never Really Define What They Mean By Socialism

Here Frank, let me define socialism for you:

1. Government takover of private industry, corporations, and the auto industry.
GM="Government Motors"

2. Jack-booted takeover of banks, and threatening those who won't comply:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DanKennedy/2009/07/10/obamas_climate_of_fear

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124078909572557575.html

Obama?s regime is forcing trillions of taxpayer?s dollars at corporate failures to give a false sense of security. It?s not working. You cannot prop up hundreds of collapsing businesses without the economy taking a serious hit. It?s not just the failures the government interferes with, it?s the successful businesses as well. The FDIC recently pressured a community bank in Boston?East Bridgewater Savings?for not lending enough to high risk borrowers, and making a profit, to boot. East Bridgewater Savings ended 2008 with $135 million in assets and deposits of $84 million; on average, one of the more successful banks in the U.S.

3. Government takeover of the country's health care system.

If the government takes over health care in this country, there will be a Darwinization of medicine. Government claims agents will be appointed to decide whether or not your life is worth saving or if it?s ?necessary? to provide treatment. The government will decide which doctor you will have, what kind of treatment will be allocated, and when. Like Canada. Like Britain. Like Germany. You will have no choice.

If you think the cost of medical treatment is high enough now, just wait if Obama gets his way.
Who do think will foot the bill for this train wreck? If you said ?the already overburdened taxpayers?, congratulations.

The socialized medicine in Europe and Canada is so dicked up that seriously ill people will fly or drive here to get treatment. If anyone is stupid enough to believe that we should model our system after theirs, by all means travel to Canada, and see for yourself.

And take a number.

This jack-booted method of taking control of the nation?s economic infrastructure is pure socialism, and will lead to a catastophic depression.

How?s that ?change? working for you?

[Christdouglas]

I respect your point, however disgree on one of your assertions in your article. Your statement about "capitalism going unrestricted" being the cause for the meltdown of the economy is incomplete. The mortgage industry, along with the federal government intervention in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, allowed the mortgage crises to happen. This is like a train switch operator falling asleep on his shift, causing an accident. The former President warned Congress of the mortgage meltdown, years before it happened. They refused to listen. So, we must face the consequences of the quality of the people we elect to Congress. Many hae fallen asleep at the switch.

[genedebs]

Just a note on Hugo Chavez: Even though some may disagree with his policies or oppose him completely, he has been democratically elected more than once with margins much greater than either Barack Obama or George W.Bush. Venezuela's elections were internationally monitored, which we in the U.S. might consider after the 2000 and 2004 debacles.Not being Venezualan, I don't have to make a decision to support or not support Chavez.However, I do support democracy and therefore respect the decision of the that nation's voters.

[Endbringer]

LOL. Don't make me laugh. He forced all his opponents to quit. Then he replaced their supreme court with his own people. Now he rules as a dictator. He is no more a president than Saddam was or the Iranian president.

[nearl451]

The more nebulous you can leave things, the more you can make people afraid. Fear of the unknown. Intended to divide and turn votes.

Socialsm, in practise, like most Governmental concepts, is represented by a wide spectrum. The spectrum goes from complete state provided existence to "you're on you're own" philosophies...with a few safety nets or applied social standards. Widely applied Public school standards are a form of socialism.

Can't really get away from socialism entirely in a modern society. People vote in a Democracy and most people ask their Govts to provide some safety net or protection from unfeterred "free" enterprise and abuse.

Liberal - - used in the same way......without definition

[cameraphone]

Republican certainly put their mouth where their money is. They wanted to do away with social security in the name of privatization. Next they will want to do away with Medicare, because it is the socialization of Health Care.

[Endbringer]

You are incorrect. The republicans have NEVER wanted to take away social security. They want to make sure it lasts because it's a giant Ponzi scheme. No where in the Constitution does it allow the federal government to do these programs, but since when does that document matter anymore?

[TickedOff1]

Even though I am not a Republican, let me define socialism as I see it:

Taking other people's money to support those too lazy and stupid to take care of themselves. If you were too self centered to have had a family to take care of you in your old age or your children were raised so they do not feel the need to provide for you, then you deserve what happens to you. The preponderance of those advocating socialism in this country appear to be black. Asians and Hispanics seem to excel in our capitalistic society even though they receive the same amount of racism. My ancestors fought and died in the civil war to free blacks in this country, so unlike other Caucasians I have not guilt complex to make me feel sorry for blacks. I am tired of bigoted and racist blacks accusing others of the same. Get over it and join the rest of American society and earn your way like the rest of us.

[ins_tease]

Wow, I have read so much B#%% Cr&$ here today I can hardly believe it. One republican zealot seems to think that entitlement programs should be run by the government for profit. Actually they are never supposed to run for profit, and can actually be run at a deficit because they are intended to benefit the great people of the United States of America.

We should think of those so-called entitlements as rights that we as a nation choose to afford for ourselves because as a nation we will be stronger for it. There will always be some who benefit and never give back (that is true in every governmental system) but by providing police, fire departments, libraries, education, a military, and YES healthcare we will be protecting and encouraging the generations that come to flourish in an environment where PEOPLE are valued.

Of course, it doesn't really matter anymore, because we are teaching our youth that we are no longer a country that honors the rule of law. Our government is corrupt, our people are obviously not important, and what we should expect is our children will grow up fending for themselves by stealing and killing their neighbors. This is what the republican paradigm promotes in practice if not their words.

Take care of We The People first. Make the corporate entities subservient to We The People's needs first, including healthcare, and healthcare that provides abortion on demand, as well as education and programs that will help limit that demand. Make the rule of law serve We The Real People before corporations and more important than any one man or politician. Promote respect for human beings and in turn we will see respect for human life. NEVER allow our government to side step an investigation into its own crimes, and because that potential exists, never infringe on We The People's right to bare arms. We The People might have to bare them against our corrupt government someday and We The People will need them.

Support HR 676. No other plan will actually save our country money, increase the quality of health care and prevent insurance companies from profiting from our sick and dying.

[Endbringer]

Universal health care is unconstitutional. Therefore, it is illegal and does not follow the rule of law. The 9th and 10th amendments prohibit universal health care. And if it passes, the 5th amendment's protection of life would prohibit the rationing of health care that would be inevitable. Every socialized medical system in history has to ration health care.

[fer60us]

Wow mary-miami, you are absolutely right but how could we make the full of cr.p GOP's and neocons understand that? Well I guess they understand (even with their low IQ's) but what they don't want is to lose the benefits they have got from profiting from our health, etc. NOT everything should be for profit so I hope Obama's plan moves forward and we become an even stronger nation with lower poverty levels and a flourishing middle class.

[fer60us]

antoniososa

Antonio you are full of cr.p; your comments show your IQ is quite below the minimum level for comprehension of what you are reading or writing. I guess you were scare of the boogey-man when you were little and now you get afraid of the word "socialism", don't you? Calm down, neither the boogey-man exists nor Obama is a socialist so go an change your diaper and be happy (and stay dry)! LOL

[Endbringer]

President Obama's policies are more fascist than socialist. When the government doesn't own, but controls the means of production, that is fascism. That is what Obama and the liberals want. They've already done it with the auto industry, financial industry, housing, and now their trying it on health care.

[riob678]

The succinct answer to the question posed is: a) if you're leanings are republican, then everything you don't understand, or agree with, is 'socialism.'; b) if your leanings are democratic, then everything you don't understand, or agree with, is 'neo-con fascist naziism.

[dustinkennedy13]

Right, Democrats aren't socialists and Republicans are Fascists or Nazis

[thusspokezara]

Socialism = Fascism = government of the people by a few people who think that because they went to Harvard they know what is best.

vs. government of the people by the people for the people.

[dustinkennedy13]

Wrong! Socialism = Direct Democratic control over politics and the means of production.

Capitalism = rule by wall street by the screaming to leave them and their profits alone and then screaming for a handout when they **** up.

[Endbringer]

@ dustinkennedy13

What are you, government educated? Socialism is not democratic control of anything. Socialism ignores the plight of an individual for the "greater good". That is anathema to the Constitution and freedom.

I find it highly ironic that the progressives are the ones who hem and haw about greedy corporations, yet they were the ones who gave those same corporations tax dollars to bail them out. Nothing in the United States is "too big to fail". We have bankruptcy laws for a reason. If you fail in the market place, then you go bankrupt. Bailing a failing company out does not help anyone. And in the end our national debt goes up dramatically, causing inflation, and hurts the economy in the long run.

You sir, just seem to have wealth envy. Since you can't make it on your own you want to demonize and punish the ones who can. That's why you seem to hate capitalism.

[noloyalisti]

This moron Steele does not even realize that we already have socialism in this country: for the rich. They take all of the reward and none of the risk.

[Endbringer]

Ignorance. This whole board is full of ignorant people with no concept of reality.

[ChrisKilo]

Really, so Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Ross Perot, and the famous actors that waited tables NEVER took a chance, they just stole from the little guy. Read Mark Cuban's biography. If you set a goal, work at it, and don't blame others because you wasted your time and money on lossing lottery tickets.