By Noah Rothman
Thursday, June 13, 2019
On Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders took the stage at
George Washington University to deliver a speech that was billed as a full-bore
defense of socialism. Opponents of that collectivist economic philosophy could
be forgiven for being a little concerned that Sanders’s boldness presaged a new
age of unabashed Fabianism in American politics. Fortunately, their fears were
proven unfounded. Sanders’s speech clarified many things, perhaps foremost
among them that socialism still has a serious stink about it.
Sanders began his speech by describing a series of
seemingly disparate events that he says were indicative of a “movement of
working people” striving toward justice. Teachers marching for school funding,
laborers unionizing, activists seeking a higher federal minimum wage,
minorities demanding the civil rights that are their legal and constitutional
due; this is the gist of the senator’s movement toward “Democratic Socialism.”
The question is, what does any of this have to do with the government ownership
of the means of production and the distribution of resources according to the
demands of the state?
Sanders set out to establish a universal definition of
what constitutes “socialism,” but only further muddied the waters. The
septuagenarian socialist attempted to draw a firm distinction between his
people-positive brand of statism and the “corporatist economics” espoused by a
rising tide of right-leaning populist leaders around the world. He cited
figures such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Viktor Orban, the
Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte and, of all people, China’s Xi Jinping as examples
of the authoritarian oligarchy standing athwart utopia. But Sanders has confused
reactionary cultural traditionalism with free-market economics. For his part,
Orban is “out-socializing
the socialists.” The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calls
Duterte’s approach to growth and development “statist.”
Putin has reversed Russia’s post-Soviet trend toward privatization, with an
estimated 55 percent of the productive economy and 28 percent of the Russian
workforce under state
control. And lord knows the general secretary of the Communist Party of
China is not exactly a Milton Friedman fan.
Much of Sanders’s speech wasn’t devoted to his economic
philosophy but Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s. The senator heaped praise on the
enduring achievements of the New Deal (steering cautiously around the many New
Deal initiatives that failed
or blew
up on the launch pad), but this, too, exposes the continuing bad odor
around socialism.
“Socialism is the epithet they have hurled at every
advance the people have made in the last 20 years,” Sanders said, quoting Harry
Truman’s attack on FDR’s opponents. But that admission concedes that the label
“socialism” was a potent slur—one that the New Dealers sought to defuse. Even
Roosevelt himself objected to the brand. “I am against private socialism as
thoroughly as I am against government socialism,” the 32nd president said in
the attempt to justify the virtual nationalization of electric utilities.
Indeed, Sanders even dedicated a substantial portion of his speech to the claim
that the social-welfare programs of the 1930s—both those that were implemented
and those that were only envisioned—are not socialism, per se.
Finally, to further confuse the issue, Sanders insisted
that Donald Trump believes in a kind of socialism himself: “corporate
socialism.” From crony capitalism, to state and local tax incentives, to
bailouts for firms negatively impacted by faulty public-sector policies—Sanders
railed against the kind of “socialism” that limited-government conservatives
also resent.
It’s not exactly comforting to hear a viable presidential
candidate wrap his arms around “socialism,” even if the candidate’s elucidation
of the concept is utterly incoherent. But it is some comfort that he cannot
quite bring himself to defend the philosophy’s core maxims, in part, because
they remain deeply inimical to the American experience. After all, it’s not
like Sanders doesn’t believe in the assumption of the ownership of the means of
production by the state.
He has argued for the nationalization of major
industries, including energy producers and financial institutions. He has
joined Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in calling for legislation that would
transform the U.S. Post Office into a financial lending institution. His
Medicare-for-all proposal explicitly outlaws the provision of most private
health-insurance companies, nationalizing the industry and leaving behind a
risk pool too small to sustain a private industry dedicated to supplemental
insurance. He has praised the merging of work and private life in the Soviet
Union—a feature of life in a proletarian dictatorship in which the two
circumstances are much less distinct.
Sanders has not renounced these views, so it is
reasonable enough to assume that he still holds them. He’s just too
self-conscious about it to say as much. That’s no small victory for the forces
arrayed in support of the free market. Like all socialist revolutions, if
there’s going to be one in America, it’s going to be forced on the public from
above by elites who believe themselves tribunes of the working class. In that
sense, Sanders’s speech was a familiar, except for one thing. At least in the
rest of the world, aspiring socialist autocrats have the courage to tell you
what they believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment