We live in interesting times. Ideas, including in our own left-leaning
discipline, which have nothing/little to do with Marxism are called
Marxist. Politicians who have nothing to do with socialism are called
socialists.
The word socialism is being heard in the US quite a lot, thanks to
Sanders. It seems there is a class struggle occurring over an important
keyword: socialism.
As I understand it, socialism ≠ reform of capitalism. Socialism is the
abolition of capitalist class relation. Socialism is the abolition of
the conditions of oppression of refugees, of immigrants, of working
class women and racialized minorities and so on.
Words and the concepts that are described by words are different things.
It does not help to say there are different meanings of the word.
While one must appreciate that Sanders has helped make the word
socialism popular, the same cannot be said about his relation to the
concept of socialism, and its underlying objective content:
At a recent town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Sanders was asked what he
meant by socialism. In reply, he said this:
“When I talk about democratic socialist, you know what I’m talking
about? Social Security, one of the most popular and important programs
in this country, developed by FDR to give dignity and security to
seniors… When I talk about democratic socialist, I am talking about
Medicare, a single payer care system for the elderly. And in my view, we
should expand that concept to all people…
“When I talk about democratic socialist, I’m not looking at Venezuela.
I’m not looking at Cuba. I’m looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden…”
What? Denmark and Sweden are Sanders’ model countries? Does he not know
that Sweden is set to expel some 80,000 people fleeing the imperialist
wars in the Middle East, that Denmark will seize the assets of asylum
seekers, and that these countries are busy dismantling welfare programs
and imposing austerity on the working class?
While no one can be against social reforms of the kind he talks about,
why is the need to describe these things by using the word socialist? I
was also intrigued when I heard some people describe Obama a socialist a
couple of years ago.
The fact that what are bourgeois reforms can be called socialist (and
what are simply bourgeois ideas can be called Marxist) signifies the
extent of the right-wing – blatantly anti-worker and bourgeois (and
imperialist) -- character of a society and the direct/indirect
complicity of the ideological spokespersons of the bourgeoisie,
including from the Left and so-called critical circles, in the
reproduction of the bourgeois rule, than anything else.
Just call your reforms by its first name, i.e. reforms, Mr. Sanders.
[One could say the same thing to most of the peddlers of left or
so-called critical ideas: call your ideas bourgeois, or left-bourgeois,
than Marxist, socialist, etc. Coexistence of multiple perspectives is
fine. A good thing. But intellectual dishonesty? Not sure. ]
Like many, I actually appreciate the fact that Sanders -- like many
people in academia -- criticizes growing inequality in the US. But his
criticisms -- like those from the Left and criticals -- are more
system-reproducing than anything else: they fall in the category of 'the
oppositional criticism [that] is nothing more than a safety valve for
mass dissatisfaction, a condition of the stability of the social
structure’ (Leon Trotsky). This really leads us to ask: what does being
critical or radical really mean in these times?
Raju
(Raju J Das
York University, Toronto)
--
|