Print this post.
THE DUOPOLY WATCH | Steven Jonas, MD, MPH
Special to The Greanville Post | Commentary No. 21B: “Bernie Sanders’ ‘Democratic Socialism’”
A lot is being made both pro and con, of Bernie Sanders’ most honest declaration that he is a “Democratic Socialist.” To his credit he has not backed away from that statement in the face of the totally expected red-baiting coming from the Repubs., led at this time by Trump. Best responses would be: “Some people say I’m old (I don’t). But nothing’s older than that one, nor as meaningless,” or “Is that all you’ve got, Don? Try again.”
But let’s dissect Bernie’s “socialism,” to see what it really is. At the bedrock of the historical definition of socialism stand “collective ownership of the means of production,” “production for use, not for profit,” and in the Leninist sense, “concentration of state power in the hands of the working class and their representatives.” Not making any value judgments here, but Bernie’s “democratic socialism” simply does not qualify as “socialism” in terms of its historical definition. (I have further defined “socialism” in its historical sense elsewhere.) Further, Bernie has made it clear that if he does not get the nomination he will not challenge the Democratic Party’s candidate, who will surely have the ruling class’ imprimatur. So he is committed to staying within that boundary. Nor will he challenge any of the major elements of the current ruling class’ foreign policy (although he might tinker with it a bit, here and there).
Bernie’ “socialism” focuses primarily on domestic policy and is nothing more nor less than the New Deal on steroids. (And sorry, Don T.. That just ain’t really very Red.) Indeed under various forms of “Democratic Socialism” in Western Europe, going back 100 years to Karl Kautsky of the German Socialist Party (SPD) and beyond, it serves/is-a-form-of capitalism, one in which the government plays an important role in the political economy. In fact, in all of the capitalist countries in Western Europe, in some of them going back more than a century, under democratic socialism the government indeed has a major role to play in the economy and in providing the underpinning for capitalist enterprise. But the capitalist ruling class has never given up its ownership of the central elements of the means of production. Nor has it turned over its control of the state apparatus to the working class or its representatives.
Otto von Bismarck: Already in the late 19th century, a rancid feudalist like Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor, granted health benefits to the working class that Americans can only dream about. He did it because the German workers didn’t beg, they fought.
Under working class pressure in Europe the ruling classes have provided certain benefits to the workers, going as far back as the 1880s. For example, at that time the Prussian Empire instituted what became the first national health insurance program in history. In his speech introducing his program to the Reichstag (Prussian parliament), Chancellor von Bismarck said words to the effect of: “the workers are revolting; we had better give them something.”
Over time, central and western European governments, especially those subject to major trade union, and at one time Communist and Socialist Party, pressure have taken major roles in such realms as: transportation, environmental protection, infrastructure, social insurance, social supports, regulation of working conditions, national health insurance, and regulation of the finance sector. But that did not make those countries socialist, even though the term “social democratic” has been applied to them. Indeed, the more correct term would be something like “social capitalist” or “national interest capitalist.”
Bernie is certainly not a socialist in the Marxist/Engelsian sense and he makes no claims to be. He is a “social democrat” in the (underlying capitalist) European sense, and also has a strong interest in certain issues of social justice that are peculiarly U.S. Indeed, for the most part, the social democrats in Western Europe have served the underlying interests of their own capitalist ruling classes ever since Kautsky led the SPD to support war credits for the Kaiser at the beginning of the First World War in 1914. In our own time, Bernie was certainly strongly against the Wars on Viet Nam and Iraq, but other aspects of his current foreign policy positions, whether driven by ideology or political expediency/necessity (depending upon your point of view), are hardly “socialist” in any sense of the word. Socialists (rather than social democrats) in the United States of course have had a very different history.But I don’t think that we should judge Bernie on something that he is clearly not and does not claim to be. We can criticize him on a variety of grounds, perhaps most importantly for prompting, inadvertently or not, the myth that achieving his program(s) is something that is actually achievable in the present United Sates with its present ruling class.
Finally, the Sanders candidacy can be of great use to the true Left in the United States. He puts forth a whole set of policies and programs that he could never get through the Congress, even with “Democratic” majorities. Of course through Repub. manipulation of the electoral process and the underlying non-democratic nature of the U.S. federalist government (see the disproportionate make-up of the Senate, originally designed to protect the interests of the slaveholding states for openers) we are hardly likely to see those anytime soon, certainly in the House. In one way or another the U.S. ruling class would make sure of that. But the true Left in the United States could use Bernie’s platform to say to the workers and their allies, “we are going to need something quite different from the present form of state/government if we are ever going to catch up even with the still-capitalist countries of Europe.” More on these matters anon.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Senior Editor, Politics, Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor Emeritus of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 30 books. In addition to being Senior Editor, Politics, for The Greanville Post, he is a Contributor for American Politics to The Planetary Movement (http://www.planetarymovement.org/); a “Trusted Author” for Op-Ed News.com; a contributor to the “Writing for Godot” section of Reader Supported News; and a contributor to From The G-Man. He is the Editorial Director and a Contributing Author for TPJmagazine.us. Further, he is an occasional Contributor to TheHarderStuff newsletter, BuzzFlash Commentary, and Dandelion Salad.
Dr. Jonas’ latest book is The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took Control of the U.S., 1981-2022: A Futuristic Novel, Brewster, NY, Trepper & Katz Impact Books, Punto Press Publishing, 2013, and available on Amazon .
1 comment
Jonathan Nack, Socialist Network
20 hrs · Oakland, CA, United States
One big distinction is that the relative peace between capital and labor that exists in Europe isn’t present in South America. Capital has by and large not accepted the reforms these governments have implemented and the class struggle remains sharp. Key in this is the economic inequality that exists in the Americas. There are a huge numbers of poor people and the working class isn’t as wealthy as the working class in Europe or in the USA and Canada.
..
Another feature the South American kinds of democratic socialism have in common is their opposition to U.S. imperialism. One way in which this is reflected is their solidarity with Cuba.
Quite distinct from the European brand of democratic socialism is the way the movements in South America refer to themselves. The term democratic socialism is not used much. These movements prefer to use the term socialism, without a modifier. They often also refer to themselves as revolutionaries.
The use of the term revolutionary by the South American kinds of democratic socialism can be confusing. The movements are not advocating the complete abolition of capitalism, not even the more radical ones, However, the use of the term revolutionary is not without cause. Many former revolutionaries and guerrillas are part of these movements, including in leading positions. Also, there are communist parties and Marxists that support and are in alliance with these movements. This is very different from the European model of democratic socialism. The iconography of these movements is also quite different and more militant than that of the European democratic socialists. For example, Che and Karl Marx (Carlos Marx) are very common icons.
What the South American democratic socialists have in common with the Europeans is that they stand firmly for multi-party democracy. They have won leadership of their governments through elections and the changes they’ve promulgated .are constitutional. There are tendencies within the South American democratic socialists which seek to radically change representative democracy and develop what is often referred to as participatory democracy, but any such changes remain at an early stage.
This brings up the last difference I’ll touch on (there is so much more that can be and should be discussed). That is it remains unclear whether the South American forms of democratic socialism are leading to the kinds of stable forms of democratic socialism, or social democracy if you will, or whether that exists in Europe, or if they are a transitional stage to something else. This may depend on whether the capitalists of their respective countries, and U.S. imperialism, accept the reforms these movements are promulgating and establish a relative and enduring peace between capital and labor.
To return to Bernie Sanders, the South American kinds of democratic socialism highlight an area in which Bernie’s politics have changed, or evolved, over the years. In the 1980s, Bernie was giving speeches in defense of the Nicaraguan revolution led by the Sandinistas. There was a proxy war the U.S. was backing to overthrow the Sandinista government, which Bernie strongly opposed. Today, Bernie never refers to the South American kinds of democratic socialism, and even referred to the late President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as a “dead communist dictator” [sic] in a fund raising email. Bernie has so far said nothing, at least to my knowledge, against the low intensity class warfare be waged against the South American democratic socialists, despite the fact that it has strong, though often covert, backing by the U.S.
There is much that can be learned from studying the South American kinds of democratic socialist movements. We must break out of a Eurocentric understanding of what democratic socialism is and can be.