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.
Among the 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 does he advocate the nationalization of any industries currently held
in private hands. 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 (without the Prussian Army’s spiked helmet): 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.”
“Bernie’
“socialism” focuses primarily on domestic policy and is nothing more nor less
than the New Deal on steroids…”
Thus
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.
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.”
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-
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 .
No comments:
Post a Comment