On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Sean Andrews wrote:
> I also think it is completely possible that few of the people
> asked have any idea what socialism actually means.
I'm sure that's true. Do we have any idea what it means? We meaning us on this list?
Has socialism, as we mean it, ever existed, in any society?
Is there any policy now being pushed by any sizeable group in the US that we could feel content calling socialist?
For example, upgraded Medicare for all -- is that a socialist program?
If it isn't, then nothing is. And if nothing is, I don't see how anyone in the real world can be for socialism except as a religious matter.
And if single payer is a socialist program, how come I've never heard a single person on the left ever call it such? Including me?
I understand why liberals don't -- they feel it would be the kiss of death. But those of us who are always crying that what we want is to change the discourse -- why don't we call it socialist? Because socialism has to be distinguished from social democracy? Why is that exactly? Why isn't social democracy an imperfect form of socialism?
Isn't that how you change a discourse? By saying that the good things we want imperfectly represent our ideal, but they are steps along the right road? They are good both in themselves and because they embody these new great alternative principles? That it's those principles that make them work?
They can only be steps if they are identified with the ideal. And they can only be identified with the ideal if we, who identify ourselves with that ideal, use the same word for both. Different senses of the same word -- that's how things get equated.
But somehow, for some reason, we never do that. We never seem to want to soil our word.
I'm just thinking about loud. I don't have an answer.
It's kind of a reflection on the discussion about why the right is so much better at changing the discourse. They clearly talk very differently. They talk about every little step as if it were a blow in the capitalist revolution -- no matter how short it falls. Like tax cuts, which have never yet led to smaller government. They use them as an opportunity to champion the principle. And consequently they've been hammering in their principles for 30 years.
Michael