Feel the Bern - from the Socialist Perspective

[Jake1001]

As the election campaign unfolds over the next 11 months we might see the emergence of a new phenomenon, the legitimization of the "Democratic Socialist". The Bern is doing better than anyone would have expected. How can this be explained ?

I will try to lay out some of the pieces. Where has Socialism been doing best ? I think we can say that is probably the Scandanavian states of N. Europe and perhaps elements of Canadian government. These are tiny countries compared to the U.S. So is it possible that socialism can scale to a larger country like the U.S. ?

To answer this, we might look to other experiments, such as Russia and China. In those cases, Socialism got tied up with political totalitarianism, as Communism, and failed as an economic system. Do we know how to prevent this ?

These and other interesting questions will have to be answered by the Bern if he is to become a serious candidate. I am only scratching the surface here, to see if there is any interest in this topic. Are there other important questions for the Bern ?

 

[Laika]

To answer this, we might look to other experiments, such as Russia and China. In those cases, Socialism got tied up with political totalitarianism, as Communism, and failed as an economic system. Do we know how to prevent this ?

This argument isn't a "real" argument against Socialism. Largely, it's an argument made by economists who selectively ignore historical evidence, insisting that only capitalism gives people the "incentive" to be efficient and productive and therefore economic growth is a unique characteristic of "free markets". Whilst Socialism in the USSR and China did not lead to them economically overtaking the US and the West, it was for a long time highly competitive. The argument that Socialism was a failed system was made after the collapse of the USSR and was not realistic position to take at any point during the Cold War itself. There was an ambitious target set under Khruschev that the USSR's economic output would exceed that of the US in 1970 and for a while it looked like this would be the case as the USSR consistently out-performed the US in terms of annual economic growth rates. A culmination of factors came together to lead to a period of economic stagnation under Breznehev and decline under Gorbachev. It was however the "shock therapy" of the Yeltsin years that destroyed the russian economy in the name of "efficiency".

Even North Korea's economy was competitive with South Koreas until about the same time period.

I will however concede that economic statistics in the USSR was not accurate and did play a propaganda role. The exact rate of economic growth is highly debated amongst historians.

It is often overlooked, but the way you define "socialism" could also include the market socialism that is currently going on in China. Whilst the libertarian right will insist that the rate of economic growth represents the triumph of the free market economy, this ignores the complexity of economic relations in China and treats the public sector purely as a parasitic entity based on taxation that cannot by definition create wealth. In reality- it can when it engages in production. It's also bizare to treat China as a free market when it is still ruled by a Communist Party and could theoretically revert to a planned economy at some future date (and as is implied within the Party's ideology). Whilst there are considerable issues of ideological consisteny, it represents an extreme manifestation of communism's flirtation with market economics (as also occured in the USSR with the period of the "New economic policy" 1922-1929). China's innital shift to "market socialist" policies took place in 1978, and its clear that it did have an effect.

I think what we need to keep in mind is that given how grossly the history of socialism and communism has been distorted to suit the propaganda needs of america's ruling class, at a minimum the ideological resistence to an openly socialist candidate will be considerable. this doesn't take into account the instutitional resistence if Sanders actually got elected. this is "unknown" electoral territory, but it is likely that it would be a close election whoever he were to run against.

I'd also add, that Socialism is a set of policies and not simply a political brand. I wonder how far Sanders is really willing to go and what level of "socialism" he is prepared to commit to. virtually anyone who supports public health care could pass for a socialist in the US given how far to the right it is on the political spectrum. I'm not saying his election would be a bad thing, but don't expect a revolution. he will only reform the current system. I still think that could be an improvement if it is done properly.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The thing that we are probably ready to do now is to finish healthcare reform. I believe that as it is the healthcare system is still killing our productivity as a nation, and I think that is becoming more obvious to people. The Affordable Care and Health Act needs some bolstering. Whichever democrat becomes president they are poised to lead the country into a more sweeping healthcare provision.

 

[rocala]

What election campaign?

 

[Valjean]

The sort of "socialism" Bernie's advocating worked pretty well here in the US from the '30s through the '70s. We re-elected a socialist president for three terms, and the socialist institutions he advocates work well, elsewhere.