Socialism: the good and the bad.

Already we're hearing rumblings from Republicans, calling Democrats "socialists" and referring to their "socialist agenda."    Bernie Sanders has long identified himself as a Democratic Socialist, and several of his opponents in the Democratic primary race agree with him on many, if not most issues.

So what does it all mean?    Why do we have such confusion about "Socialism?"

Those of us old enough to have lived through the Cold War have a better grasp on this, perhaps, because the totalitarianism of the communist-controlled countries often spoke of the "socialist" underpinnings of their political philosophy.    Make no mistake, however:    Joseph Stalin was a brutal, totalitarian dictator, whatever he believed about socialism.

But that really adds more confusion than clarity.    A recent New York Times op-ed article by economist Paul Krugman helps.   He begins:

"What did you think of the bunch of socialists you just saw debating on stage?

"Well, you may protest, you didn't see any socialists up there.  And you'd be right.  The Democratic Party  has clearly moved left in recent years, but none of the presidential candidates are anything close to being actual socialists -- no, not even Bernie Sanders, whose embrace of the label is really more about branding . . . than substance.

"Nobody in these debates wants government ownership of the means of production, which is what socialism used to mean.  Most of the candidates are, instead, what Europeans would call "social democrats":  advocates of a private-sector-driven economy but with a stronger social safety net, enhanced bargaining power for workers and tighter regulation of corporate malfeasance.   They want America to be more like Denmark, not more like Venezuela."

Krugman then goes on the discuss how far the Republicans have moved to the right, by comparison.   Saying that Republicans are expected to use the Democrats' "socialist agenda" against them in the election campaign -- yet we tend to accept Republicans' even more extreme rightward shift as "simply a fact of life, barely worth mentioning."

According to a study quoted by Krugman, US Republicans have moved "far to the right of mainstream European conservative parties. . . . Basically, if we saw something like America's Repubicans in another country, we'd classify them as white nationalist extremists."

Krugman continues:  "One might even argue that the GOP stands out among the West's white nationalist parties for its exceptional willingness to crash right through the guardrails of democracy.  Extreme gerrymandering, naked voter suppression and stripping power from offices the other party manages to win all the same -- these practices seem if anything more prevalent here than in the failing democracies of Eastern Europe. . . .

"So it's really something to see Republicans trying to tar Democrats as un-American socialists.  If they want to see a party that really has broken with fundamental American values, they should look in the mirror."

Krugman did not set out to write a clarifying article about the meaning of socialism and communism.  He was writing about the current political climate and how the term is misused as a slur.

So let me add a bit of clarifying history from the Cold War era experience.   There seem to be two big objections among Americans against a socialist system:

(1)  Conflation of the totalitarian political enforcement of socialist policies rather than having them democratically adopted through free elections;   this argument really is against totalitarianism, not socialism per se.   Democratic socialism is no more totalitarian than is capitalism.

(2)   Others object because they do not accept the principle of egalitarianism.   They do not want to have a social safety net or social benefit programs, because it means asking people who do not need help to share in paying for it for those who do.    This involves progressive taxation -- which critics call the pejorative "wealth re-distribution."

For the best arguments against the latter objection, I would turn to the teachings of Jesus (feed the poor, care for the sick, take in the stranger, etc.)   In fact, there is a saying going around:   "Jesus was a socialist."    The other good answer comes from Elizabeth Warren, who addresses it head-on when she confronts the wealthy factory owner or the corporate billionaire about how much they benefited from government assistance (sometimes referred to as "corporate welfare"), whether it is the transportation systems that allow them to ship their products or the huge loopholes that allow companies like Amazon to pay no corporate taxes at all.

Ralph