“The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.” — Upton Sinclair, 1951
FEW WORDS MAKE TODAY’S LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES more apoplectic than being labeled a “socialist.” This was not always the case. There was a time when “socialist” was not automatically taken as a pejorative, when many considered the word apropos in identifying their politics.
Author Upton Sinclair was such man, at least until he lost two bids for Congress. He then came to the obvious conclusion: being labeled a “socialist” was a death knell for elective office. So he abandoned the label to find a new home as a “Democrat.”
Under the pretense of being a Democrat he became that party’s candidate for governor of California in 1934. He lost again, but garnered almost 900,000 votes (37 percent). The election featured a third-party candidate, Henry Haight of the Progressive Party, who received 13 percent of the vote. Had Haight not run, the socialist may have won — as a Democrat.
The Sinclair campaign, under the banner of Ending Poverty in California (EPIC), a collectivist land confiscation scheme, served to inspire future Democrats to become leaders of the California Democratic Party. Jerry Voorhis, who served 10 years in Congress, is an example. State Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk later stated that EPIC was “the acorn from which evolved the tree of whatever liberalism we have in California.”
On the national front, a Socialist Party candidate for president obtained almost 17 percent of the vote, and the Socialist Party platform of 1928 attracted considerable attention in some circles, including Democratic leaders. To summarize a few of the socialists’ more “moderate” goals:
1. “A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government (distributes) electrical energy to the people at cost.”
2. “An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief …”
3. “National ownership and democratic management of railroads …”
4. “Immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works and a program of long range planning of public works … All persons thus employed to be engaged at hours and wages fixed by bona-fide labor unions.”
5. “Loans to states and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works and the taking of such other measures as will lessen widespread misery.”
6. “A system of unemployment insurance.”
7. “A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions …”
8. “Shortening the workday” and “Securing to every worker a rest period of no less than two days …”
9. “Enacting of an adequate federal anti-child labor amendment.”
Now compare the Socialist Party goals of 1928 to the Democratic Party platforms of 1932 and 1936:
1. “We advocate extension of Federal Credit to the states …” (see # 5).
2. “We advocate unemployment and old age insurance …” (see #4, 6 and 7).
3. “As a result (of the TVA) electricity has been made available at a lower rate …” (see #1).
4. “We have increased the worker’s pay and shortened their hours …” (see #8)
5. “(We) have adopted a Nation-wide Flood-Control program …” (see #2)
6. “We have undertaken to put an end to the sweated labor of (the worker’s) wife and children …” (see #9).
The above lists are not a complete set of socialist goals since enacted by Congress. Many would likely have come to pass regardless of the control of government — some justifiably so (Nos. 2, 6, 8 and 9).
What is interesting is how quickly FDR abandoned the platform of ’32, which he termed a “covenant with the people,” to latch on to the socialists’ “New Deal” goals of ’28. That being the case, reconsider the following platform statements from the Democrats of 1932:
• “We advocate an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures …” (National debt increased 158 percent from 1933-39.)
• “We favor maintenance of the national credit by a federal budget annually balanced …” (The lowest deficit, adjusted for inflation, was $740 million in 1938.)
• “We condemn the … extravagant expenditures of the Government …” (See above.)
• “We condemn the … extravagance of the Farm Board … which made the Government a speculator in farm products, and the unsound policy of restricting agricultural products …” (See the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933.)
Many say FDR was responding to the changed economy, but remember the Great Depression started in October 1929, three years before his election. In this light Obama’s puerile excuse of “it was worse than we thought” does not apply.
At some point in time many members of the Socialist Party became members of the Democratic Party because they concluded that to foment change one needs to work within the system. Sinclair realized this in 1934, Alinsky in 1971, Obama in 1996 when he reconsidered his membership in the radical group The New Party.
For many all this history is forgotten. But there has long existed an enduring commonality between the Socialists and Democrats that is relevant to today. If you doubt this, reconsider item 3 above, nationalization of the railroads (Amtrak, 1971); as well as item 7, national health insurance (ObamaCare).
There are many variations of “socialism,” ranging from moderate (Europe) to those at odds with both the Constitution and human nature (i.e., Cuba). Recognizing that the Democrats are now controlled by the latter group, those who value liberty want to do all they can to stop our country going further down the path FDR embarked on by encompassing the Socialist Party platform of 1928.
Dennis Lund graduated from California State University-Long Beach with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1981 and has resided in Benicia since 1992.
Sharing is caring!
Informed, educated Americans will take the label, they just won’t take the label used so blatantly inaccurately, as it so often is these days.
In the old days, when civics classes were a mandatory part of education, people knew what socialism was: a specific system of government wherein the workers owned the means of production. No, Obamacare is not socialism. No, the auto industry rescue wasn’t socialism. No, the bank bailouts weren’t socialism. No, gun control isn’t socialism. No, cap and trade isn’t socialism. No, Keynesian economics isn’t socialism. No, central banks aren’t socialism.
“The government doin’ stuff” isn’t socialism.
Bruce stated: No, Obamacare is not socialism
As stated in the piece Nationalized Healthcare was one of the many planks in the platform of the Socialist Party of 1928.
I think Bruce stepped up to the plate and helped prove DDL point well. You were good at explaining why you do not believe Socialism is a part of this nation. Obamacare is a tax, money is being taken from those that have it and redristributed to those that don’t to allow for government ordered medical coverage. We have about 50 million people who receive food stamps from the government funded in large part by taking money from those that have it via government taxes and redrustributing it to those that don’t, along with welfare, government housing, and such. Social Security and Medicare are not part of the equation as people put into those systems with the plan of recovering a benefit at a later time. We have a POTUS and his party of Progressive Socialist Democrats that beat the tax the wealthy and make them pay their fair share almost constantly. The wealthy already pay most of the taxes in this nation. We have a huge segment of the population that do not pay any taxes to the government, they received handouts they call entitlements which is the wealth being redristributed. Could go on all day but why is it necessary, Socialism is not hidden in the closet in this nation nor in the Democratic party. They believe in the Socialist system which is allowed in this nation, they should be proud of what they believe in and are apparently pertty sucessful in installing as a form of government. Please be aware that the other half of the nation does not believe in that system and one day they will say NO MORE!
Dennis, you’ve made a good try, here, but the trouble is, first, your politico-economic conceptuality is roughly eighty years out of date. Second, the word “socialism” in your mind carries too broad a brush to paint reality accurately. I suggest you remember that what “socialism” actually means is, Government Ownership of the Means of Production and Service. Government regulation serves society via the public interest but does not constitute Socialism. Surely even you recognize the benefits to the nation of most of the elements you cite in the former Socialist program?
“Watching,” you seem to suffer the same conceptual malfunctions as Dennis.
Robert,
Why do you only read 1/3 of what I write, then embarrass yourself by pointing out issues which were raised in the piece, that you missed?
You posted just after midnight, you were possibly tired, or do you just not pay attention as you leap to erroneous conclusions?
RMS: I suggest you remember that what “socialism” actually means
I was quoting the Socialist Party and their goals. To achieve their ultimate goal through the ballot box is impossible without changing the Constitution; they are smart enough to know that.
RMS: even you recognize the benefits to the nation of most of the elements
Quoting from part of the 2/3’s that you missed: “Many would likely have come to pass regardless of the control of government — some justifiably so (Nos. 2, 6, 8 and 9).”
Suggest also you look up EPIC, Sinclair’s socialist ideal where he was proposing that unused private farmland be confiscated by the government and used for raising food for the poor. In your increasingly feeble mind, the raising of food for the poor is a laudable goal, one which offsets the stealing of private land from the land owner.
But in my ‘backwardite’ perspective, stealing property by force of law, no matter the cause, is wrong without just compensation (via eminent domain).
Oh, Dennis:
If you Republicans weren’t so anti-everything, you wouldn’t take such joy in branding liberals, progressives, and Democrats with such half-truths and lame names.Who and what do you represent besides sour old white men, disgruntled by your own humane stagnation? Look at your collection of mediocre half-wit Presidential candidates in 2012…these were your motivating and aspiring leaders? No thanks!—pb
I do you use the term Liberal Socialist as a very broad term. Not every Denicrat has Socilalist leanings. But using it in the manor I do is about President Obama and many of his policies. Obamacare is Socialism, auto takeover is Socialism and there are others. Any public transportation run by the government is also Socialism. I have no problem with unions but when they start directing how the auto bailout will be, yes that is Socialism with a trade off for the unions and not the bond holders. What else can it be when they could have gone into bankruptcy and come out much better with no government/tax payer money at all. Very g clear explanation of the label Dennis.
Regarding the democrats or the Obama administration as socialist …
An excerpt from Professor Robert Jensen’s article: “Is Obama a Socialist”? Reflections on the Degradations of Politics and the Ecosystem. Source: Counterpunch. Sept. 25, 2009. Gives the reader/community a more accurate description of our present political discourse.
” Obama is not only not a socialist, he’s not even a particularly progressive capitalist. He’s part of the neo-liberal camp that has undermined the limited social -democratic character of the New Deal consensus, which dominated in the United States up until the so called- “Reagan revolution.” While Obama’s stimulus plan was Keynesian in nature, there is nothing in administration policy to suggest he is planning to move to the left in any significant way.The crisis in the financial system provided such an opportunity, but Obama didn’t take it and instead continued the transfer of wealth to banks and other financial institutions begun by Bush.
Looking at his economic advisers, this is hardly surprising. Naming no-liberal Wall Street boys such as Timothy Geithner as secretary of the Treasury and Larry Summers as director of the National Economic Council was a clear signal to corporate America that the Democrats would support the existing distribution of power and wealth. And that is where his loyalty has remained.
In short: Obama and some democrats have argued for a slight expansion of the social safety net, which is generally a good thing in a society with such dramatic wealth inequality and such a depraved disregard for vulnerable people. But that is not socialism. It is not even socialism lite. It is capitalism- heavy, full throttle, and heading for the cliff.”
Regarding the democrats and the Obama administration as being socialist …
An excerpt from the article below by Dr. Jack Rasmus, professor at St. Mary’s College.
“This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather that agreed to introduce Social Security in the 1930’s and that proposed Medicare in the 1960’s. This is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic President, that agreed with Republicans and Corporate America to begin the repealing in stages of these very same programs–programs that are not ‘entitlements’ but are in fact ‘deferred wages’ earned by Americans over the decades that are now being ‘ concession bargained’ away without any say or input. Not content with concessions from these workers still in the labor force, capitalist policy makers are intent on concessions on social wages now coming due in the form of Social Security and Medicare benefits.’
“It’s not a grand bargain; it’s a charade and a’ grand collusion’ from the very beginning from Simpson -Bowles to the present.”
http://www.zcommunications.org/obama-s-new-budget-why-he-s-cutting-social-security-and-medicare-by-jack-rasmus
things are spinning out of control. (as James Taranto would say)
Dennis: Tell me AGAIN how your Republican “free-market” mentality with less-regulatory control would have helped the economy not to have been raped from the top…I’m all ears, Amigo, I just love to hear a good story. Here’s mine:
Exodus…
Preparing for the short sale of our home;
packing up 29 years of memories –
Some of this stuff will go with us,
some to Goodwill, eBay, Craigslist, and the dump.
I’m now trimming the side bamboo, the roses,
and the Sassafragus – Weedeating the side yard,
things I didn’t have time to do as we raced
to reach the escalating interest-only
mortgage payment each month.
This is not the Amerikan dream,
but when the economy is allowed to be raped from the top
in a leaderless nation, who wins and who ultimately loses?
I say we’re a Predator Species in a Predator Nation,
and those who don’t believe or understand that
may still be Out To and Enjoying Their Lunch.
“Will there be room for us in the new place?”
ask Michelle and Cat’, as we pack up their pictures
and remembered things.
“Yes, you will always be in our hearts and daily lives.
Grief is a Hard River, and angels guard our trail
through the Amerikan forest always.”
©Peter Bray, 4/14/13 All rights reserved
Peter: I’m all ears, Amigo
With all due respect Peter, you are not all ears, as you have not paid attention on this issue, where you continually focus blame on one source, while ignoring others.
If you are serious about finding out more on the subject start here:
Financial Crisis Report: Dissenting Views By Peter J. Wallison
BTW, both George Bush, whom you hate so much your eyes bleed at the mere mention of his name, as well as John McCain, both pointed out to Congress that there was a pending crisis and the Democrat controlled Congress did nothing, in large part because of Barney Frank.
As to being under water, which you brought up; I have no information on your situation to address it.
I do know others in the same position and know that they took seconds out on their houses when prices were going up to finance various things. A lot of people who are “underwater” should look a bit closer at their own actions rather than placing blame on the evil bankers.
Just as the housing market looks to be healing the Obama Administration wants to duplicate the government strong arm tactics that caused the first housing market collaspe. Time to lower the lending standards again and get people with poor credit into homes they will not be able to afford down the road. Government putting its hands into everything in this nation is Socialism. I could really care less if PB, RMS, Benician, etc. want to have the government take care of all their needs. I have seen over a half century how well the government does when it gets involved, they fail at almost everything they they touch. I do take offense with these same people attempting to force their beliefs on me and the millions of other citizens of this country who do not care for your form of government. Go ahead and start your vial name calling, that is one thing I have learned we can count on from the crop of liberals in this nation today. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-02/business/38220144_1_housing-recovery-housing-market-housing-officials
It is amazing is it not? Jim Pugh did a fine piece on this issue. These so called ‘leaders’ of the Democrats really hope no one remembers the havoc they have wrought and done so with the full support of seemingly intelligent people.
All the armed forces are also “socialism,” Livesay. All government departments, agencies, social and infrastructure services are “socialism,” in Dennis’s language. But that “language” is a moribund dialect found mainly inside the ultra-right-wing opinion bubble. We who live in today’s real world see things more accurately. Backwardites, however, are such self-convinced individualists and so certain of their superiority that they can neither view the world as it is nor see what it could become with a more liberal understanding and willingness to cooperate which grasps unalienated communality (not “Communism”) as a way of life aiming not at personal status but a viable future for all.
I think it is fair to compare and contrast party platforms to the Socialist Party platform. When comparing it is clear that the Democrat Party does closely align to the Socialist platform. Why should that be a shock? The Democrat Party has always embraced federal government programs, regulation, and control of many aspects of the free market. That does align with socialism. The Republican Party largely supports free market approaches to solving problems.
Alas, Steve, “free market approaches” seldom solve social problems efficiently or provide public needs except by accident.
Where does the money come from Robert. Try taxes even you can figure that out. Free enterprises creates jobs and for sure taxes so we can all have the wonderful quality of life we enjoy. I will take free enterprise any day.
I didn’t know that the “free market” was intended to solve social problems at all. However, the free market produces wealth that through charity has helped quite a bit. The notion that government is efficient or effective at problem solving is not indicated by any recent stories that I’ve seen. Government has an important role to play but when it loses focus on what it needs to do and pays little attention to effectiveness or efficiency we have to have the kind of discussion that Dennis has initiated. That ought to be in the interests of Democrats and Republicans alike.
I understand what you are saying. Free enterprise does create income which produces taxes. So the government does use those taxes for social issues. Efficient or effective is another issue all together. I agree the discission must happen. It is not at present under President Obama.
Saw this come t today , whichreminded me of thie above column.
“I don’t think people care,” Trumka (AFL-CIO President) replied. “I don’t know what the difference is between a Democratic Socialist and a Democrat. I don’t really know what the difference is and I think most voters don’t care.” … He is right most voters don’t care, but they should.
DDL attended government funded Cal State! Socialist!
We’re all socialists. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Police Departments, Fire Departments, Schools, roads, clean air, clean water, safe foods and consumer products, etc. Who thinks these socialist policies are bad ideas?
Many of those are quality of life issues support by both parties. They are not Socialist ideals.
So, if both parties support it, it can’t be socialism? Jeez, you’re a dope.
Remember Benician you claimed they were Socialist ideals. I did not. S/S is not a Socialist issue. It is supported by the employees and the employer.
Read what I post. You could get a better understanding before doing your name calling routine.
Social Secutity is not a Socialist policy. It is funded by employee and employer contributions that are ok for about twenty years. The rest are funded by tax dollars. Not subsidies by the government for agenda driven ideals like renewable energy.
Bless you, Bob, you’re starting to sound liberal on social security. But, what makes an “agenda driven ideal like renewable energy” an unworthy goal? Looking at the world’s condition under carbon-fueled economy, it seems highly desirable. Do you remember how many schemes around 1900 to make machines fly ended in disaster? Do you expect every effort in a new technology to succeed? A few days ago, you were making snide remarks about our mayor because she had favored that new car company in the industrial park that failed to get competitive and had to close the plant. Novelty in business is risky. Not every element of risk can be foreseen — like China’s sudden domination of solar conversion unit sales that made Solara fail.
Well stated, Bob Shelby…Biases from that individual you mention are as prevalent as flies on a decaying mackerel…Sellers of buggy whips are the last to buy a Ford or Chevy and are known to beat their wasted mules into the ground hoping for a rebound on the market also of Whale Oil Sales…Dying dogs are dying dogs. They congregate around public watering holes and lose their fluidity and sense of spelling let alone their marginal grasp of grammar…pb
Robert and Peter neither of you understand my political sound thinking. S/S is not a cradle to grace Socilist program like medicare it is paid for by the employers and employees and will continue that way with some adjustments. Peter and Robert try to understand the difference. Robert you and Peter are followers and big backers of the mayor. My comments about the photo op was because the mayor made way over the top estimates on the CODA car. 12/14 thousand produced the first year, 200 employees at Amports and the county was going to buy the car as part of theoir fleet. Even you Robert and Peter are a little brighter than that to believe that statement. So guess what I called her on it. I have no problem with renewable energy and new ideas. I just think they need to be funded by private enterprise. Government, high tech and companies working together get more accomplished than subsidies for failed domestic and foreign electric cars. Two are out now with maybe two more to go. I do understand failure but not on the tax payers dime. Monterey shale oil field is going to put California back on the map big time. It will be done with cooperation of the State, High Tech and very sound strong companies. As we speak the state is putting forward legislation to make drilling cleaner, safer and at the same time not harmful to the enviroment. You see Robert and Peter cooperation can get things done and give all of us a better future. By the way the Keystone pipeline will be approved by your Enviro Greenie President. Even he understands cooperation when it is politically to his advantage. Solyndra failed all by themselves. Bad management all at the tax payers risk. Not good Robert. Peter is clueless on any of this just a cradle to grave Liberal dreamer.
Bob said: S/S is not a cradle to grace Socialist program like medicare…
Bob, you are well known for your typo’s and only the petty point out errors on a regular basis, but sometimes a typo can make sense or be humorous.
In this case, I am sure you meant ‘cradle to grave’, but I think I like ‘cradle to grace’ better! Kudo’s to you if that was in fact what you meant.
Thanks Dennis.
If we use the traditional, academic definition of socialism (i.e., workers owning the means of production), then this president has not enacted one iota of socialist policy in five years (and probably isn’t likely to start doing so). There was a time when Americans knew the difference between socialism and social democracy. If we want to use the intellectually lazy definition preferred by modern Tea Partiers, and include any and all government programs and services in our definition of what socialism is, then the word loses its negative connotations. You all can claim Obama is a socialist all you want to, the more you do the less your voice even matters. Because it’s not really talking about anything that has any intellectual rigor or historical accuracy. You want to harken back to a time when socialism was something evil and scary in this country, but you are in reality talking about a lot of common sense programs that virtually all successful capitalist societies embrace (including historical Republican presidents such as Roosevelt and Eisenhower).
I question how closely you actually read the piece, as opposed to only skimming it, as I never stated that Obama “was a socialist”. Perhaps the fault was mine in not being clear enough; if that is the case I will chalk it up to a learning experience for me.
What I have stated is many “Socialists” have abandoned the socialist party to work within the system as Democrats (the Republicans would not have them and vice-versa).
To be successful in that effort one has to accept legislative losses and defeats to stay in power, changing positions to suit the needs of the electorate, not taking positions on some issues by voting ‘present’, but always working towards advancing the ultimate goals.
In the context of the piece, you stated: You want to harken back to a time when socialism was something evil and scary in this country, but you are in reality talking about a lot of common sense programs that virtually all successful capitalist societies embrace
That generalization does serves more to prove the point made in the opening sentence and not reflect what was stated: There was a time when “socialist” was not automatically taken as a pejorative…” as well as Many (of the goals of 1928) would likely have come to pass regardless of the control of government — some justifiably so (Nos. 2, 6, 8 and 9).
And
(Sinclair) lost again, but garnered almost 900,000 votes (37 percent).
1934 was not a time when ‘Socialism’ was ‘evil and scary’, that developed Post WWII.
Most of the goals laid out in 1928 by the Socialist Party of America have been achieved, that cannot be denied, which was the point that was being made. Terming those who achieved those goals as being ‘socialists’ is an understandable use of the word, whose definition was long ago broadened from the narrow definition preferred by some. Words to change with time and new definitions evolve; ‘marriage’ would be a current example.
I always appreciate civil discussions, such as yours, I would encourage you re read the piece, taking into account some of the above points.
Correction to paragraph five, first sentence should read: That generalization serves more to prove the point made in the opening sentence and does not reflect what was stated; …
Dennis,
I’m not sure how critical it is for there to be a rigorous definition of socialism. Clearly, as noted by many of the comments, that label is still objectionable even though the policies of those who called themselves socialists are no different. Maybe they didn’t know what socialism was. What should be of concern to everyone is that we have gone well beyond socialism in several important areas so that government plays the dominant role in determining what gets done, how and by whom. In the end it won’t do anyone any good, including those that presumably are the beneficiaries, namely the poor and the poorest thereof. BTW, for those who wish to believe that this is what citizens want they should check out the latest Pew poll.
Absolutely correct DDL. My belief has always been that political terms regardless of what party have changed and broadened over the years. Calling someone a Liberal Socialist is different today than calling someone a flat out Socialist. The term Socialist leanings is used a lot today. The same with the term Tea Partiers. We all take liberties with the identification to get our points across. I use the term Enviro Greenie to identify a single agenda driven enviromentalist. I use the term Liberal Socialist because of their political agenda on the government being our savior. I consider President Obama a Liberal Socialist.
This clip is very revealing.
Chris Mathews asks DNC Chairman Wasserman-Schulze: “What’s the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist?”
She unable to answer the question, though asked three times.
Thank you to both of you for the comments. This website and the BH are going through some changes due to the departure of several key individuals. This has not interrupted the hard copy of the paper, but the website has been impacted. It is my understanding that this issue is being addressed and a resolution is forthcoming.
I hope you will check back again.
Regards
Dennis