1Q:
What is the definition of socialism? Is it a political system, or an
economic system? Does socialism always lead to communism?
1A: Socialism is social
ownership, or worker control, of the means of production. The means
of production include factories, farms, and workplaces. Some
socialists may also want to socialize land, and/or railroads, energy,
or other utilities. Marx, Lenin, and Khrushchev wanted socialism to
lead to communism, but some socialists are more reformist and
gradualist, and don't expect communism to come to America. Socialists
oppose the personal and private ownership of things that make more
sense to own collectively, namely, things that are occupied
and used collectively, like housing, workplaces, public utilities,
common lands, etc..
2Q.
People say that Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea are the
best examples of communist countries. Do you think that is
true?
2A: Cuba, China, Vietnam, and Laos all have markets, so they are not communist (by most accepted definitions of communism). They may have the appearance of communist countries
because they are governed by communist parties, or because they have
autocracy or one-party rule. But autocracy is not a mandatory feature
of communism. Also, if true communism is anarchistic (as anarcho-communists believe), then one-party rule, and political nations in the first place, would logically have nothing to do with communism.
Most of those countries I would describe as some of the best recent examples of authoritarian communism (a little less so Cuba). China certainly doesn't represent the free communism that Karl Marx envisioned (much less the idea that it would be worldwide, and empower the individual).
Most of those countries I would describe as some of the best recent examples of authoritarian communism (a little less so Cuba). China certainly doesn't represent the free communism that Karl Marx envisioned (much less the idea that it would be worldwide, and empower the individual).
3Q. Are there any countries left in the world that are still socialist? And are there any examples of successful socialist societies, either now or in the past? Are any European countries fully socialist?
3A: The “Eurosocialist”
countries in Europe are really closer to neoliberalism and democratic
socialism than they are to full socialism. Countries like Norway,
Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands are a lot like the United
States: they're countries with regulated markets and a robust social
safety net. Calling those countries socialist is like calling F.D.R.
a socialist, it's an exaggeration.
Socialist societies have existed,
and do exist now, but they are usually short-lived. Sometimes they're
destroyed by outside forces, sometimes they became tyrannical and had
to be overthrown. Examples include Catalonia, Aragon, and the
Mondragon cooperative in 1930s Spain, anarchist Ukraine in the 1930s,
and the Paris Communes of 1848 and 1871. The Mondragon cooperative
still exists today, and so does Rojava in Kurdistan.
By the way, I would call
Iceland one of the freest countries that exists, and I would
also describe it as one of the best examples of both a
free socialist and
libertarian society.
4Q.
Critics of socialism often say that socialists just want to be lazy,
not work, accept handouts, and “steal other people's money” by
redistributing the wealth. Do you think that is an accurate
description of socialism?
4A: I think this is a description
of the Democratic Party platform, intended to criticize it, and also
used as a criticism of socialism, which has some similarities but is
not exactly the same thing. The idea that socialists want to steal
people's money is not true; it is wealth
and opportunity that
they want to redistribute, not money.
Most
socialists, communists, and anarchists don't even like the idea of
money or currency in the first place, and want to get rid of it. Most
socialists would agree that whether our children live or die from an
illness should not depend on how much we work for government-printed
pieces of paper, stamped with arbitrary values, covered in toxic
processing chemicals.
Socialists
and Democrats do both want social welfare, and government assistance,
but only the socialists realize in full that the problem is deeper
than satisfying our temporary needs, and handouts like Food Stamps
are just a temporary solution. What needs to happen is that ordinary
people need more opportunities to acquire skills and education, and
artificial privilege erected by law with the help of taxpayer dollars
needs to be eliminated if we're going to claim that we have a free
market and a free, meritocratic society.
The people in Venezuela are not poor because they lack money; in fact, they have so much money that they don't know what to do with it, because of hyperinflation. They're poor because they lack resources; food, medications, adequate shelter, and other things we need to survive. Socialists understand that if you put too many obstacles - like hard work, and requirements to use money and currency, and pay onerous taxes, and follow overly stringent regulations - between people who are trying to support their families, and the things they need to do in order to do that, then the streets eventually fill up with starving people, sick people, and corpses.
A society that considers bodies of sick people piling up in the streets "not a problem" or "not my problem" cannot rightfully be called a society.
A society that considers bodies of sick people piling up in the streets "not a problem" or "not my problem" cannot rightfully be called a society.
5Q. Is the Democratic Party socialist? If not, is anyone in the Democratic Party a socialist? Who are the most socialist-leaning people in American public office today?
5A:
Hillary Clinton is not “far-left”, and neither is Nancy Pelosi.
They've both affirmed their commitment to capitalism over socialism.
They're two of the most pro- Wall Street Democrats, and they've been
used to making deals with Republicans, and corporate lobbyists who
pay both sides, for a long long time.
I
think Maxine Waters wants people to think she is a socialist, but I doubt she really is one. Bernie
Sanders, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I
think, are the best examples of socialist-leaning politicians in
office today.
6Q. What is the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and why do some people think it is socialist?
6A:
The Congressional Progressive Caucus is what's called an ideological
congressional member organization (C.M.O.). Basically it's a faction
of the Democratic Party. Other factions of the Democrats include the
New Democrats, the Blue Dogs, and the Populists, just like the
Republicans have the Tea Party Caucus, and several other groups.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus has for a long time been cited
by people on the far right as one of the top groups infiltrating
American politics to promote socialism and communism. I understand
why they would think that, since the Progressives are the
farthest-left faction in the Democratic Party, but Progressive
Democrats are not likely to cut off their association with neoliberal
Democrats like Clinton and Pelosi until the membership of the
Republican Party plummets significantly.
Progressives
would choose a free communist society if they could, and if it were
easy, but they are gradualists and reformists, unlike social
anarchists and anarcho-communists, so they insist on reform through
elections, and that's why they compromise with pro- Wall Street
Democrats so much, and, in the eyes of some, sell out their base
(working families and the urban poor).
7Q. What is the difference between a Democrat, a socialist, and a “democratic socialist”? Has America ever had a socialist leader? Were F.D.R., or Teddy Roosevelt, or any other presidents, socialist, or inspired by socialism?
7A:
An American Democratic partisan is not quite a full “one man, one
vote” small-”D” democrat. On one hand, American Democrats are
steeped in the tradition of American liberal-conservatism, and
democratic republicanism. But on the other hand, modern Democrats
stray away from the tradition of a liberal society and a limited
government, which was the party's platform in the two decades after
Reconstruction ended.
The
question surrounding democracy in American government is,
fundamentally, “Whose property are we democratically voting on?”
Also, “Did people give to the public pot voluntarily, and did they
earn that money fairly in the first place?” Socialists know that a
business is not competing fairly if it is subsidized and bailed out.
But Democrats can't seem to decide how much of the economy should be
up to be distributed according to a majority vote.
The
idea that the liberties in the Bill of Rights would ever be put up
for a public vote frightens conservatives, libertarians, and even
some progressives and nationalists. That is why, in my opinion, it is
unlikely that real socialism could take root in America (or, at
least, without a revolution), and that's why a lot of people are
afraid of it. It would mean a dramatic change in how politics, the
economy, and society are run.
“Democratic
socialist” is the term we use to describe people like F.D.R., and
Norman Thomas (who inspired him), people who wanted American
democracy with socialist influences. The term “democratic
socialist” is distinct from “social democrat”, which was a term
used to describe German communists in parliament in the early 20th
century. Personally, I think it would make more sense if the terms
were flipped.
8Q. Is Venezuela currently socialist? Did they achieve socialism under Chavez? Was the current crisis in Venezuela caused by socialism, or by something else?
8A: Venezuela is not
quite socialist, because it still has billionaires and private
ownership. But it's almost socialist. They were closer to socialism,
and more prosperous, under Hugo Chavez.
Critics of the
Venezuelan system arguing that nationalizing oil reserves is
automatically socialist, but it's only socialist if the profits are
reinvested to benefit the people. And that's what Chavez did – tied
oil profits to a citizens' fund - until late in his presidency the
value of oil went down, and thus the Venezuelan economy tanked. Tying
oil profits to a citizens' dividend, or sovereign wealth fund or
permanent fund, is something that's also been tried by Alaska,
Norway, and Libya.
It's true that the
country did spend a lot on social welfare when they thought the
oil-based economy would continue to succeed. But it did not help that
the country was burdened with some 7 million Colombian refugees due
to the civil war several decades prior. It also didn't help that, in 2002, the U.S. orchestrated a coup wherein Chavez was kidnapped,
and then released and restored to power after two days, after a right-wing opposition backed and funded from Washington, D.C. briefly took control.
State spending directed towards attempts to fight poverty, which could be described as "socialist", is not the only economic system that's to blame for Venezuela's problems. The profit motive of international capitalist sellers of food, toilet paper, and other necessities, is also partially to blame.
Some who analyze the situation in Venezuela believe that the country's middle and upper classes' demand for a wider variety of products in stores, has been used to portray the food shortages as worse than they actually are (not that they aren't extremely problematic), and that ensuring a wide variety of foods is not as important as delivering large amounts of staples in order to keep people sufficiently well fed. Big business and media in the country, naturally, benefit from broadcasting demands for their own products, so that explanation seems to hold up to scrutiny, especially considering how problematic intellectual property can be in facilitating free, open, and low-cost international trade.
Additionally, many Latin American countries, Honduras included, have been plagued with drugs, and the C.I.A. has not only undermined regimes all over Latin America, it has traded drugs for weapons in the course of arming all kinds of rebel groups in order to achieve those ends. Also, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuela in 2014 and 2018, after U.S.-Venezuelan relations soured (following Chavez's apparent embrace of Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein over George W. Bush, and Venezuela's failure to cooperate enough to fight terrorism in the eyes of the United States).
State spending directed towards attempts to fight poverty, which could be described as "socialist", is not the only economic system that's to blame for Venezuela's problems. The profit motive of international capitalist sellers of food, toilet paper, and other necessities, is also partially to blame.
Some who analyze the situation in Venezuela believe that the country's middle and upper classes' demand for a wider variety of products in stores, has been used to portray the food shortages as worse than they actually are (not that they aren't extremely problematic), and that ensuring a wide variety of foods is not as important as delivering large amounts of staples in order to keep people sufficiently well fed. Big business and media in the country, naturally, benefit from broadcasting demands for their own products, so that explanation seems to hold up to scrutiny, especially considering how problematic intellectual property can be in facilitating free, open, and low-cost international trade.
Additionally, many Latin American countries, Honduras included, have been plagued with drugs, and the C.I.A. has not only undermined regimes all over Latin America, it has traded drugs for weapons in the course of arming all kinds of rebel groups in order to achieve those ends. Also, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuela in 2014 and 2018, after U.S.-Venezuelan relations soured (following Chavez's apparent embrace of Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein over George W. Bush, and Venezuela's failure to cooperate enough to fight terrorism in the eyes of the United States).
So nationalization of
oil, civil war, U.S. military interference and economic sanctions, refusal of police to
fight violent drug gangs, price controls on food that foreign
food sellers have refused to accommodate, and poor prioritization of food needs - as well as poor maintenance of the means of oil extraction - have all been significant
causes of Venezuela's problems.
American "economic imperialism", with the goal of slowing the development of the "resource-cursed" Venezuela (with its huge reserves of oil in the North, the price of which collapsed 70% in 2014, the year after Chavez died) - and a sense of legal entitlement to future profits from sales of consumer goods and everyday needs - are much more responsible for Venezuela's current problems than "socialism" (which, again, means worker control, ownership, or management of the means of production; workplaces, factories, large machines, farms, and maybe other things). There will not be full socialism in Venezuela until no workplace or energy company is owned by a private owner.
If Venezuela pursues more disciplined, motivated worker control over energy utilities, becomes successful at ensuring fair health and safety standards at oil extraction facilities, and expands oil refining in its own country, then it will be on the road to energy independence - and with it, economic and political independence - and it will also prove to the world that a socialist economy can be responsible, clean, and self-sufficient. Unfortunately, that will only piss America off (until it finds itself reasonable leadership who don't want to subjugate Venezuela's interests to their own).
It could be argued that Venezuela's unrestrained social welfare spending in the face of massive temporary profits reflects a socialist desire to spend more in the short-term and overlook long-term problems. But it can also be argued that capitalism is more concerned about short-term gains than socialism, because capitalism has the reputation of prioritizing short-term profits over human lives. To any person with a conscience, the needs of Venezuela to move its most vulnerable citizens out of dire poverty and into acceptable housing, ought to outweigh the needs of Western commodities traders to acquire secondary homes for themselves.
American "economic imperialism", with the goal of slowing the development of the "resource-cursed" Venezuela (with its huge reserves of oil in the North, the price of which collapsed 70% in 2014, the year after Chavez died) - and a sense of legal entitlement to future profits from sales of consumer goods and everyday needs - are much more responsible for Venezuela's current problems than "socialism" (which, again, means worker control, ownership, or management of the means of production; workplaces, factories, large machines, farms, and maybe other things). There will not be full socialism in Venezuela until no workplace or energy company is owned by a private owner.
If Venezuela pursues more disciplined, motivated worker control over energy utilities, becomes successful at ensuring fair health and safety standards at oil extraction facilities, and expands oil refining in its own country, then it will be on the road to energy independence - and with it, economic and political independence - and it will also prove to the world that a socialist economy can be responsible, clean, and self-sufficient. Unfortunately, that will only piss America off (until it finds itself reasonable leadership who don't want to subjugate Venezuela's interests to their own).
It could be argued that Venezuela's unrestrained social welfare spending in the face of massive temporary profits reflects a socialist desire to spend more in the short-term and overlook long-term problems. But it can also be argued that capitalism is more concerned about short-term gains than socialism, because capitalism has the reputation of prioritizing short-term profits over human lives. To any person with a conscience, the needs of Venezuela to move its most vulnerable citizens out of dire poverty and into acceptable housing, ought to outweigh the needs of Western commodities traders to acquire secondary homes for themselves.
9Q. What is the difference between libertarian socialism and authoritarian socialism, and what are some examples of how their economic systems differ from each other? Is Venezuela libertarian-socialist or authoritarian-socialist? Would you describe Hugo Chavez or Nicolas Maduro as autocrats or dictators, or as men of the people?
9A:
Maduro is certainly having a hard time convincing his people that he
is one of them, and worthy of Chavez's legacy. Some believe that Maduro displays more autocratic, authoritarian-socialist tendencies than Chavez, whom is viewed as more dedicated to
freedom and equality. Or maybe it just appears that way, because the
economy was so much more successful under Chavez.
Maduro has also made attempts to replace the national legislature, and fill the supreme court with people who support him. But in Maduro's defense, he did that in response to the United Socialist Party's December 2015 electoral loss to an opposition made up of many of the same elements as the coup that ousted his predecessor Chavez in 2002 (with the help of the C.I.A.). Carmona, the president installed for two days during that coup, made the same moves that Maduro made some 14 years later: replace the national legislature with a new one, and pack the supreme court.
Maduro has also made attempts to replace the national legislature, and fill the supreme court with people who support him. But in Maduro's defense, he did that in response to the United Socialist Party's December 2015 electoral loss to an opposition made up of many of the same elements as the coup that ousted his predecessor Chavez in 2002 (with the help of the C.I.A.). Carmona, the president installed for two days during that coup, made the same moves that Maduro made some 14 years later: replace the national legislature with a new one, and pack the supreme court.
Authoritarian
socialists use autocracy, centralization of decision-making power,
single party rule, price controls, rationing, and quota systems;
while libertarian socialists use mutual aid, direct action, voluntary
exchange. They also use radical reclamation of stolen property; also called
appropriation, or re-appropriation. Re-appropriation is distinct from expropriation, the term Chavez used to justify nationalizing resources in the name of socialism and populism.
Most libertarian socialists want to avoid expropriation, and are instead focused on achieving both freedom and equality through action that evades the state and tries to make it unnecessary. Authoritarian socialists, on the other hand, believe that freedom is often a threat to equality, and that, therefore, order is necessary to ensure equality. I would recommend that direct food aid continue in Venezuelan society, with or without the government's assistance.
Most libertarian socialists want to avoid expropriation, and are instead focused on achieving both freedom and equality through action that evades the state and tries to make it unnecessary. Authoritarian socialists, on the other hand, believe that freedom is often a threat to equality, and that, therefore, order is necessary to ensure equality. I would recommend that direct food aid continue in Venezuelan society, with or without the government's assistance.
10Q.
Do you think America could ever become socialist? If so, what would
it look like? Is there any risk that if America tried socialism, it
would end up poor like Venezuela? Why or why not?
10A:
I think the most likely way America could become socialist, at this
point, is if Bernie Sanders got elected president, and appointed a
cabinet with some more establishment-type Democrats but at least half
“democratic socialists” who think more like him.
But
I don't see America approaching real socialism until at least the
second term of the presidency of a socialist-leaning politician like
Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, or Sherrod Brown, and at that, only after
significant changes are made to labor law (such as the repeal of most
or all of the Taft-Hartley Act, which severely limits the ability to
engage in meaningful, coordinated strikes and boycotts).
There's
an outside chance that socialist and communist parties in the U.S. -
like Community Party U.S.A., Socialist Equality Party, Socialist
Workers' Party, and the Party of Socialism and Liberation - may
become more popular, and caucus with the Democrats, and grow the
Democrats' coalition to the point where it is unstoppable and stays
in the majority, and becomes virtually a single-party-rule system.
I
don't think there's any real risk that America would become anywhere
near as poor as Venezuela is right now if it tried socialism. Marx
made it clear that the countries where it would be easiest and most
practical to achieve socialism are in the more
industrialized nations, and the wealthier ones (like America), not
the poorer, less industrialized ones (like Venezuela).
America
overproduces all sorts of things: cars, junk food, toys, consumer
goods. So why should it be so difficult to afford to buy anything
in this country? I think it's because of brand names, bad patent
laws, trade subsidies, and protection of “private” property by
public police.
Socialists understand that violence, and the legal enforcement of the
right to profit more and more each year off of one's private
property, are the most important thing backing the value of those
products, and also the value of our currency.
There
is more than enough to go around in this country, it's just not being
distributed right. Take food for example; the U.S. throws away
between a third and half of the food it produces every year. Food
pantries are full of bread and other things they can't get rid of.
The show Extreme Couponing
shows
us that using coupons
right can reduce the price of food by 99%.
But even when free food is available, in abundance, people don't
always have easy access to it, and the law may require it to be
thrown away before it goes bad. Which causes prices to
increase.
We
can't afford it, so it goes bad, so they throw it away, so we can't
afford it more. Maybe
if you send it to us for free, it'll get to us before it spoils! How
is mass-produced junk food so expensive, when you couldn't pay
me to eat most of it!? You don't
need to be a socialist to admit that something's not right here. The
problem is that we're valuing obeying the law, and protecting the
property and brand of the food producers, over our families' needs to
eat.
11Q. Some people believe that socialism, and free markets or capitalism on the other hand, are incompatible. Do you agree, and why or why not?
11A:
Socialists and communists would like a marketless society if they
could have it, because most of them believe that markets, trade,
currency, and money are not, and should not be, necessary in a just
world.
But it
is not necessary to abolish markets in order to achieve socialism or
communism; in fact, there is a proposed economic system called market
socialism, in which markets still exist, but what's being bought and
sold on the markets would mostly be cooperatively or socially owned,
rather than privately owned. Mutualism is a similar system.
“Market
communism” exists too; this is a term that's been applied to the
economic system used by Deng Xiaoping in China from the late 70s to
the mid-1980s. China opened its markets to foreign investors, and as
a result, the largely state-owned, socialized economy, became more
balanced against other types of property ownership (private and
personal).
Unfortunately,
Deng's regime ended with the Tiananmen Square Massacre, because
Deng's regime was not prepared to face the consequences of more
economic openness and cultural openness to the West. The people
started to demand much more freedom than Deng's regime was willing to
accommodate, and China started drifting back towards authoritarian
communism, away from a vision of socialism geared towards
freedom.
12Q. Critics of “socialized medicine” warn of
rationing and long lines in places like Canada and the U.K.. Do you
believe that adopting a socialized, non-profit, or universal health
care system in America would improve the state of health in the U.S.?
Why or why not?
12A:
That all depends on what "socialized medicine" really means, and whether “universal health care” means universal
care or universal insurance. I think the importance of insurance is
being overstated, and the importance of health care, and
access to health technologies and medications, is overshadowed.
It
would help to get the profit motive out of health insurance, but this
issue should not be discussed without also addressing the questions:
“Why did we ever repeal the law that prohibited health insurance
companies from operating on a for-profit basis in the first place?”,
and “Why would a health insurance company agree to cover for a
disease that a person already has, when they know they're going to
lose that bet?”
As a
member of the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Libertarian Party,
I'm inspired by both socialist and free-market libertarian ideas.
People who study both fields, understand that it's not only the
socialization of risks that private owners take that's the problem,
it's also a problem that people are not allowed the freedom or
opportunity to compete against established producers, and provide
better products for better prices and/or better qualities (without
being accused of trying to corner the market, or push others out of
competition).
New
technologies in pharmaceuticals, and new developments in the way
issuers structure health insurance policies, mean that the health
industry is, by no means, exempt from those economic lessons. I
oppose the individual insurance mandate, and I would support a public
option, but I wouldn't ban for-profit health insurance. But people
shouldn't assume that banning for-profit health insurance is the best
way to achieve positive change in health policy; the main problem
isn't that for-profit insurance isn't banned, it's that
not-for-profit health insurance is discouraged by the
government because the government can't find a way to justify taxing
it.
I would
expect that a truly socialist health care system would be managed by
a board comprised of doctors, nurses, other health care employees,
and medical scientists, in order to fit the “worker control and
management” model traditionally associated with socialism. I would
want to make sure that patients - the consumers of medications
– are also represented, even though they are not hospital workers.
Including patients on a board of managers would make a hospital into
a consumer-cooperative, instead of a cooperative enterprise.
13Q. Why did you decide to call your second collection of essays “Soft Communism for 90's Kids”?
13A:
Because I am a 90's kid; I was born in 1987. I was four when the
Soviet Union collapsed, so as a result, I didn't grow up being taught
to be afraid of the Russians or of communism.
I
was 14 when 9/11 happened, and 20 when the financial crisis of 2007
hit. I've seen a police state steadily growing in my country, and I
know we have troops in 4 out of 5 countries around the globe. I
honestly have more critical things to say about my own country
than I do about our rivals in Moscow. In Virginia, you can get a
longer sentence for protesting the government on the wrong section of
a public sidewalk, than you can for committing murder. In my opinion,
the American police state makes the U.S.S.R. look like they weren't
even trying.
I
called my book “Soft Communism for 90's Kids” because people in
my age group are not afraid of socialism, the left wing, progressive
politics, or anarchism. I wrote the book to inform people about
changes to labor law in Wisconsin, my criticism of federal labor laws
like the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley, and to introduce the economic
systems of Georgism and Mutualism in order to show that there is a
bridge between American libertarianism and the radical left after
all.
14Q. What are the names of some of the articles you've written about socialism and labor law?
14A:
Articles I've written about socialism and labor law include “What
Liberals and Conservatives Both Get Wrong About Socialism”, “Janus
Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law”,
“Majority Unionism, Compulsory Unionism, and Compulsory Voting Hurt
Workers”, and “Wisconsin and Collective Bargaining: My Journey on
Labor Policy”.
You
can read them on my blog, the Aquarian Agrarian, at
www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com.
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/09/what-liberals-and-conservatives-both.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/07/janus-decision-reveals-two-faced-nature.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/11/compulsory-and-majority-unionism-hurt.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/wisconsin-and-collective-bargaining-my.html
Questions Written on December 8th, 2018
Answers Written on December 9th, 2018
Published on December 9th, 2018
Edited and Expanded on December 10th, 11th, and 13th, 2018
Edited and Expanded on December 10th, 11th, and 13th, 2018
