MyDD :: I Am A Socialist---And So Are You, And Bob Dole, Too!

I Am A Socialist---And So Are You, And Bob Dole, Too!

by Paul Rosenberg, Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 06:30:01 PM EST

This is great. I'll write some about this later today or tomorrow. It is amazing how the right has demonized something that pretty much everyone, to a certain extent, actually is--Chris

Bob Dole has the use of his arms and legs today because of socialized medicine. Newt Gingrich once called him "tax collector for the welfare state." In 1996, he even said that broadcast industry ought to pay--something on the order of %70 billion was the estimated value--for the public spectrum that they ended up getting for free in the Telecommunications Act that Clinton signed. In short, Bob Dole is, like almost all Americans, a socialist in part, whether he knows it or not.

Technically, socialism means a system in which the basic means of production are owned in common. Not everything. Just the basic sources of economic wealth--such as the oil wealth in Iraq. But more loosely, socialism refers to social ownership in general.

Equating the two senses is a major source of confusion and foundation of demogogery. America has plenty of socialism in the second sense that is not leading to socialism in the first sense--though some might wish it were. Prominent examples include local fire and police departments, libraries, public education, Social Security, Medicare, and the National Park System.

[more on the flip...]

If it were up to capitalism and the free market to provide, there would be no police departments, only private security firms and groups of vigilantes. Fire departments would be like private insurance companies--as, indeed, they once were in much of America--responding only to those who had paid for them in advance. Libraries would be relatively small affairs, of several hundred, perhaps as many as several thousand books, found in the houses of a few of the wealthiest 5 or 10%. Education would be similarly limited to the children of this same demographic. Social Security would not exist. Poverty and old age would be virtually synonomous. Medicare? Forget it! The elderly would simply die from relatively minor illnesses. And national parks? That's why we have Disneyland!

Guess what? Nobody wants to live in that world. People voted to create a dramatically different one. Not just once, but over and over and over again. They did so because they are socialists--at least in the second sense--whether they know it or not.

If the word "socialism" had not been so successfully demonized, it would be a lot more easy to talk about solving some of our most pressing problems. Such as our health care system, which leaves 40-some million people uninsured, and spends more money on paperwork than Washington ever dreamed of.

We need to keep this fundamental reality in mind when ProudUnionDem posts a diary saying:

Bernie Sanders isn't one of these politicians that the wingnuts of the Rep party call a socialist. He calls himself a socialist! He claims to be a "proud" socialist. The last thing we need is to be associated with this nut even though he does often vote correctly.

He is saying that we ought to buy into the hysterical demonization of socialism. That we ought to help spread it ourselves. That we should become part of the very problem that is destoying informed rational self-government in our nation. He is saying we should be part of that problem, rather than fighting those responsible for it. Rather than letting Bernie Sanders perform a valuable public service--not just the ordinary service of public office, which he has performed excellently--but the further service of helping to detoxify the label of "socialism" so that we can think and talk about our political problems and possible solutions in a much more sane and balanced way.

Socialism is a fact of life. It's a pragmatic necessity we all recognize. Only some of us layer over that recognition with a massive dose of denial. That doesn't make it go away. It just makes us more crazy.

It's time to get sane.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 18 Comments :: Post a Comment

Benjamin Franklin was a communist (3.00 / 0)

He was an early maven for the idea of a communist fire department and communist postal delivery:

Franklin's other inventions include an odometer and first known medical catheter. In addition, he first conceived a number of institutions, including the American Philosophical Society (1728), first American Fire Department (1736), and what became the University of Pennsylvania (1742). He was Philadelphia's first Postmaster General (1736), and of course played a major role in the formation of the United States of America. One of the last roles he played before his death at age 84 in 1790 was President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery.

And of course we all drive on communist national highways and most of us drink communist water.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:04:59 PM EST

Who cares??? What matters is people... (none / 0)

And people's lives..

The problem with the GOP leadership is that they have a 'greed disease' that makes them blind to the needs and lives of everybody except their c'ontributors' who (surprise!) just happen to be corporations and rich people..

If you look at all of 'the GOP's issues', every single one, is based on a cover story, a lie, that obscures the real issue.. Money.. taking ours to give to them..

If that isn't 'communism' I don't know what is..

Kleptocracy is more like it..

We really need to FIGHT for more money for things to make young childrens lives more stable... Because this 'greed disease' is caused by an unstable, fearful early childhood, and once one has it, it never goes away.. ruining that persons life..

That is why these people are so resentful and (secretly) want vengeance on us.. the normal feeling ones..

Seriously..

It really is that way..

BTW, there's a name for this disease.. its called narcissistic personality disorder.. and Hitler, Stalin, Mao and all the other worst alltime killers had it too.

People over ideology...

It needs to be the law....

by ultraworld on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:27:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obviously, You Don't Know What Communism Is... (none / 0)

If you look at all of 'the GOP's issues', every single one, is based on a cover story, a lie, that obscures the real issue.. Money.. taking ours to give to them..

If that isn't 'communism' I don't know what is..

That has nothing to do with Communism, communism or 'communism' (whatever the quote marks are supposed to mean.)

When you say, "People over ideology..." I can't help reflect on the fact that you seem to know nothing whatsoever about political ideology, not even the basics.

This leads me to believe that the sentence, as uttered, is utterly meaningless. In fact, it's a highly ideological utterance, an expression of know-nothing populism which is, far more often than not, highly reactionary.

Not that I think you are a reactionary--not in the slightest. I just think that you've neglected to think about certain things that you really ought to examine. Otherwise, you are likely to generate some really nasty unintended consequences.

As for your sweeping NPD diagnoses, I think one must be very careful in psychologizing politics. There's a real danger of obliterating the contextual elements so crucial to the political realm. There are millions of narcissists in the world, but damn few get into positions of real political power. A political understanding must entail some insight into all those supporters and enablers, without whom such people could not come to power.

There are psychological constructs which can help us understand this, but they are necessarily much more general than NPD, as they apply to general attitudes which are much more accentuated among the ranks of authoritarians.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 06:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Communism, commune, community (none / 0)

com·mu·ni·ty -
(1.) A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government.
(2.) The district or locality in which such a group lives.
(3.) A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community.
(4.) A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the community of color.
(5.) Similarity or identity: a community of interests.
(6.) Sharing, participation, and fellowship.
(7.) Society as a whole; the public.

Hillary is a socialist. Remember It Takes A Village?

I heard Curtis Sliwa call Richard Nixon a socialist on KABC, because of his liberal social policies, and of course, his roots in the People's Republic of San Clemente.

President Eisenhower was responsible for the socialist national highway system, so Ike was a socialist.

Since GM benefited from the national highway system, and has such an extensive health care and retirement program, GM is socialist.

A listener called McIntyre in the Morning, and accused Doug of being a communist because he favored SEC reguations to control corporate corruption. Doug laughed and replied, "That's right! Das Kapital in the Morning with Doug McIntyre" on KABC.

Bill O'Reilly follows Doug at 9:00 a.m. Is Bill O'Reilly a socialist, because his radio program is carried over the public airwaves?

Network television is socialism. Actually, it should be more socialistic, but Congress gives away the public airwaves, instead of demanding a social benefit in return.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 08:26:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

'Privatization' of water and of highways.. (none / 0)

It's the next big thing, they say...

Get in now, while you can..

"Your money, or your life"

Nothing like good old American capitalism, eh?

There are a bunch of excellent essays at the sites of
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/
and
http://poclad.org/

on resisting corporate privatization of water and other essential public resources...

by ultraworld on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'Privatization' of water and of highways.. (none / 0)

We can only imagine how much water will cost if an Enron clone corners the market in any market segment.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:14:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Richard Nixon a communist according to neocons (none / 0)

Under Nixon, US had a 70% top income tax rate and price controls.

by afs on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 12:32:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

good diary. (none / 0)

btw, what's it like to be eminem's manager?

by Sam Loomis on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:24:21 PM EST

Eminem: I'm Still Waiting To See The Almonds! n/t (none / 0)

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 06:06:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Goddamn right. (none / 0)

I've always called myself a socialist. But now, because of Sanders and because of this diary, I'm going to start saying it a lot louder.

by Woodhouse on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:58:54 PM EST

Japan is a socialist country (none / 0)

Which is very annoying to right wing economists, because it is such a successful example of a flexible command economy with a government controlled industrial policy. From a 2001 Lexington Institute report:

Japan is only the most blatant example of the failure of modern state activism.

Japan is such an economic failure that by 2003:

Japan had established export leadership or even worldwide dominance in precisely the advanced manufacturing industries that had up to the 1980's been the cornerstone of American power.

Toyota Motor's stock market value soared. The result was that by 2003, Toyota Motor's stock market value was greater than the combined value of General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler.
- Unsustainable, Eamonn Fingleton

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:57:37 PM EST

Socialism: (3.00 / 0)

Most things should be made and produced by the private sector like Cars, Shoes, clothing, and various other consumer goods.

But things such as our water, energy, healthcare, and the defense of our country are much better handle by a government of the people since the market doesn't have incentive to deliver these basic needs to all people.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 06:53:22 PM EST

Cars And Capitalism? Not So Much. (none / 0)

Shoes and clothing, sure, but you might want to rethink your position on cars.

A very good argument can be made that cars should not be privately produced, since (1) transportation as a whole is such a basic economic sector and (2) cars are utterly dependent on government for their usefulness.

Without publicly funded, policed and regulared (socialist) road & highway systems, and without 50-some years of military presence in the Persian Gulf & environs, your car would be nothing more than a very expensive, very sedentary sex symbol, symbolizing impotence more than anything else. Either that, or a very nice planter for watermelon.

As it is, the auto industry's highly subsidized dominance over the US economy has generated a whole series of dysfunctional consequences, such as exurban sprawl on a scale that makes it extremely difficult for us to reshape our infrastructure for long-term sustainability. The problem is not so much the private profit made in the car industry itself as it is the concentration of political power and economic self-interest that has contributed to a highly dysfunctional development path. And this is the sort of problem that a deeply democratic socialism could help us avoid.

That said, I think it would be possible to combine government ownership of the basic industry with a contracting system of private design firms to produce a far more interesting and customer-satisfying mix of models.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And then there's (none / 0)

the conspiracy by GM and Standard Oil to wipe out public transit. But I guess that's more of an anti-corporate power rant.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't stop there. (none / 0)

Don't forget to mention the socialist space program that has yielded all manner of new technologies back here on Earth, or the decades of public spending that gave us the Internet itself. Public investment for the public good is what made America such a strong economy and a mythical utopia to the denizens of many "free market" economies where money has all the power.

On the other hand, public investment for the benefit of the relative few -- corporate socialism, the hallmark of Gee-Dub's regime -- that's a different story.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:19:19 PM EST

Right on! (none / 0)

Good to see someone write about socialism honestly. We're all socialists to one degree or another. Want to change that? Want to begin by taking tax exemption away from churches?

Anyway,thank you Paul!

by Bean on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 03:15:50 PM EST

Sensible priorities and balanced, well integrated (none / 0)

goals..

Actually, I feel as strongly against Communism as I do to fascism..

Paul, I'm sorry that you see me as uninformed.. I probably am in the sense that I have never read Adam Smith, Marx, etc. at any length..

I write what I do from the gut, and I just try to say what I feel..

I do feel strongly about my NPD theory because I can literally see it in these people when I watch them on CSPAN.

There are very subtle clues in their language, mannerisms, the way they look and especially, speak as they are telling a lie.. etc..

I have a lot of personal experience with people who have NPD, and I don't see them as always intentionally evil, even if it often works out that they end up causing huge amounts of pain to others..

They would just say that it isn't personal.. they just 'had' to do what they do.. They only care about themselves.. and they have a very weak conscience, if they have one at all..

The ones who gravitate to religion are the lucky ones, actually, because they clearly, subconsciously, know that they are lacking something and I think they are trying to replace it - but they fail to understand the most important thing.. which is unconditional love..

So they replace it with 'discipline'..

Does that make any sense?

The line about communism I used basically to make the point that totalitarian systems ALWAYS end up taking everything of value from the common man... that ideology is almost irrelevant in that it is just an excuse.. which totalitarians will dispose of when expedient.. So in that respect, communists and fascists are more alike than they usually realize... (Although sometimes they form secret alliances that would make George Orwell proud of them..I'd be very afraid of that..)

by ultraworld on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:36:33 AM EST

broadcast spectrum (none / 0)

"In 1996, he even said that broadcast industry ought to pay--something on the order of $70 billion was the estimated value--for the public spectrum that they ended up getting for free in the Telecommunications Act that Clinton signed."

um.. i totally agree with this; am i missing something?

mydd straw poll vote: 1. other (gore) 2. unsure 3. dodd 4. edwards 5. obama

by colorless green ideas on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:19:25 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.