Just Say the Word

sussudio

I feel so good if I just say the word
Su-Sussudio
Just say the word, oh-oh
Su-Sussudio

Sussudio
Phil Collins

The crowd is hostile, but the tune is catchy — it wins them over. (Go ahead, watch the video — soooo 80’s. We’ll wait.)

Fast forward 34 years to a new tune:  “Su-su… socialism.” Just say the word, and it’s an instant failure to communicate. The Millennials get up and dance. Their parents think about re-writing their wills.

I found all the sources for this week’s post by Googling “when did socialism become a bad word?” This article[1] has that title, and gives two answers. The first is the word’s historical definition:

“Merriam Webster defines it thusly:

“any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

“a) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b): a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

“a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”

The second answer is also historical:  to the older generation, socialism means the Cold War, the Commies, and the other nasty stuff in this  video. (It’s short — again, we’ll wait if you want to take a moment to watch it.)

Socialism video

“Socialism” sets off alarm bells for those who lived through all that:

“For a generation with no memory of bomb shelter drills or sledgehammers smashing the Berlin Wall to pieces, the sad reality of life under socialist rule has been forgotten, and the lessons of the Cold War have been relegated to the ‘ash heap of history’ alongside communism. Instead, the concept of socialism has often been confused with liberalism. Socialism seems like a fine idea that means a more social equitable society for everyone—free health care and free education for starters.

“Socialism is not roads, welfare, and free education. Socialism has always had a more ominous goal and shares close historical and ideological connections with more reviled terms: Marxism and communism. Karl Marx took socialism to what he viewed as its natural conclusion: The ‘abolition of private property.’”

How Did America Forget What ‘Socialist’ Means?  Politico Magazine (March 22, 2016)

But the new version of socialism isn’t about state-owned means of production,[2] the abolition of private property, or a Communist revival:

“For conservatives and libertarians, the news that millennials are embracing socialism is frightening. They shouldn’t fear, because the United States is not going to nationalize the economy any time soon. That’s because the word “socialism” doesn’t mean what our newfound socialists use it to mean.

“To people who don’t like it, socialism means ‘state control over the means of production.’ Turn to your nearest dictionary and you’ll find something like that. But it means something different to the people who use the term as a positive thing. Your coworker’s son who wants to take America in a socialist direction? He simply wants more government.”

Millennials Use The Word ‘Socialism’ — And May Not Know What It Means, The Hill (Oct. 27. 2019

If it’s true that the hypothetical “coworker’s son” wants “more government,” then what for? Among other things, to support the republic — the res publica, the commonwealth — as we saw last time. I.e., the new socialism is in fact about things like “roads, welfare, and free education.” Finding a seat for those topics at the economic policy-making table is apparently a catchy idea:

 “Socialism is no longer a dirty word in the US, certainly not among millennials, anyway, who face a far grimmer economic future than previous generations. It isn’t surprising that a number of recent polls show millennials are increasingly drawn to socialism and wary of capitalism.

“The popularisation of what has been termed by some as ‘millennial socialism’ in the US arguably began with the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign gave it further momentum, and Ocasio-Cortez’s recent win added more fuel to the fire.

“You can see this trajectory reflected in the membership of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Founded in 1982, it had about 6,000 members for most of its history. Shortly after the 2016 election, the organisation saw a boom in membership, reaching 11,000 paying members in December 2016. Since Trump took power, interest in the DSA has grown exponentially. A spokesman said it hit 47,000 members last week, and has ‘seen the fastest growth in our history following the win of Ocasio-Cortez.’”

Socialism Is No Longer A Dirty Word In The US – And That’s Scary For Some, The Guardian (July 29, 2018)

Catchy, but will it win over the hostile crowd? Aside from associations with the dictionary definition and Cold War history, “millennial socialism” is up against a more systemic, more powerful obstacle:  deeply entrenched cultural faith in the capitalist free market . We’ll look more at that next time.

[1]When did socialism become a bad word?Kimberly Bulletin (Apr. 5, 2019)

[2] Never mind that the student loan business has been nationalized, as we saw previously.

Whatever Happened to Working For a Living?

“Politically, every transformation has begun
with a repudiation of the certainties of the previous age.”

– Economist Guy Standing

Guy Standing is a research professor at the University of London and a prolific author and world-traveling speaker. In his book, The Corruption of Capitalism (2016), he analyzes how the concept of working for a living has fared under the two economic models we looked at last time (the Fabian Society’s social democratic model and the Mt. Pelerin Society’s free market). I can add little to his analysis by rephrasing it, therefore I’ll quote excerpts at length in this post and the next.

“The period from the nineteenth century to the 1970’s saw what Karl Polanyi, in his famous 1944 book, dubbed “The Great Transformation” — the construction of national market economies.

“[T]he model that underpinned the Great Transformation made “labour,” not all forms of work. Socialists, communists and social democrats all subscribed to ‘labourism.’ Those in full-time jobs obtained rising real wages, a growing array of ‘contributory’ non-wage benefits, and  entitlements to social security for themselves and their family. Those who did not fit this model were left behind.

“The essence of labourism was that labour rights — more correctly , entitlements — should be provided to those (mostly men) who performed labour and to their spouses and children. As workers previously had little security, this was a progressive step.

“Labourism promoted the view that the more labour people did, the more privileged they should be, and the less they did the less privileged they should be. The ultimate fetishism was Lenin’s dictate, enshrined in the Soviet constitution, that anybody who did not labour should not eat.

“The labourist model frayed in the 1980’s, as labour markets became more flexible and increasing numbers of people moved from job to job and in and out of employment.

“Labour and social democratic parties everywhere became ‘reactionary’ — reacting to events rather than forging the future — and regressive, allowing or even fostering inequality.

“Around 1980 saw the beginnings of a Global Transformation — the construction of a global market system. As with the Great Transformation, the initial phase may be called ‘dis-embedded’ because the emerging economic system rendered old forms of regulation, social protection and redistribution obsolete or ineffectual.

“Politically, every transformation has begun with a repudiation of the certainties of the previous age. This time the attack was on labour-based security, previously the objective of governments  or both left and right. Now it was seen as an impediment to growth. Once again, policy changes were dominated by financial capital. Intellectual justification came from the so-called ‘Chicago school’ of law and economics at the University of Chicago, whose leading lights went on to receive Nobel Prizes. Their agenda, honed in the Mont Pelerin Society set up by Friedrich Hayek and thirty-eight like-minded intellectuals in 1947, evolved into what is now called neo-liberalism.

“This meant the liberalization of markets, the commodification and privatization of everything that could be commodified and privatized and the systematic dismantling of all institutions of social solidarity that protected people from ‘market forces.’ Regulations were justifiable only if they promised economic growth; if not, they had to go.

“As a consequence of these developments, ‘in-work poverty’ has rocketed. In some OECD[i] countries, including Britain, the USA, Spain and Poland, a majority of those in poverty live in households where at least one person has a job. The mantra that ‘work is the best route out of poverty’ is simply false.”

I.e., according to Prof Standing, historical and contemporary adherence to the Fabian and Mt. Pelerin ideals has skewed and will continue to skew the notion of working for a living in ways that are unsustainable in current economic reality.

Ironically, Lenin’s dictum  that “If any man does not work, neither let him eat” was first articulated two thousand years ago by none other than St. Paul. 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Thus the idea of “working for a living” has long persisted as a cornerstone belief in communist, socialist, and capitalist economic theory, giving it nearly universal sacred status. To question this ideal is truly to trample on hallowed ground.

More next time.

[i] The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has 34 mainly industrialized countries as members.