An in depth investigation into the meanings of common terms used in today's political debates. by die Schweizer
(centrist)
Friday, February 18, 2011
Today’s political debate is being carried out by people with no sense of history, word meaning, or political theory. This has led commentators from Glenn Beck to Keith Olbermann to throw around words like Socialism, Communism, and Progressivism in ways that are, at times, completely opposite to their true historical meaning. If Americans want to have a meaningful debate about the role and size of government, we must first get a proper hold of the terms of the debate. In this first column concerning political definitions, let us look at three of the most hotly discussed terms in circulation today; socialism, communism, and progressivism.
Socialism’s actual definition: The word Socialism did not have its start with Marx, but it is a word that is essential to understanding both Marx and his political ideology. It is therefore essential to the understanding of the true, historical definition of Socialism that one know a bit about Marx’s theories. Marx looked at the world through a deeply historical point of view, for him, all historical progression was a result of conflict between the "haves" and the "have-nots." While the groups making up the "haves" and "have-not" classes have changed over the millennia, the conflict has not. At the time of Marx’s writing, he termed the "have" group the bourgeois or capitalist class. These were the rich, the owners, the middle class, and the managers of society. The "have-not" class of laborers he termed the "proletariat." In Marx’s historical view, the "have-not" class always triumphed over the "have" class to set up a new political and economic system.
He believed that this had most recently happened when the bourgeois underclass overthrew the feudal lords and established themselves at the head of society in the new capitalist system. Socialism was then what Marx called the coming system when the laboring proletariat class would overthrow the owning/managing bourgeois and take control of society. For Marx, Socialism was best defined in a phrase he used in his book "Critique of the Gotha Project," the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Furthermore, he believed that Socialism could only be achieved through an armed and violent uprising. During this "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," the job of the new ruling class would be to stamp out all vestiges of capitalism and those who espoused it as an ideology. This project would involve such tools as execution, murder, and reeducation.
The Media definition of Socialism and why it’s wrong: Many right-wing and left-wing commentators use Socialism when they mean state control of a formerly private sector of the economy. This use is incorrect, Socialism is the name of the governmental form when the laborers rule and violently destroy all vestiges of capitalism. There is no such thing the "creeping Socialism" that Glenn Beck and others mention regularly. Socialism can only happen violently and suddenly.
To a true, died-in-the-wool socialist, programs that have been called out by the right as examples of creeping socialism, such as healthcare reform, social security, and business regulation are the complete opposite of Socialism. They believe that these programs are tricks that preserve the capitalist system by helping the workers ignore their poverty and low position in society. Indeed, they believe that these programs, by providing for the basic needs of society’s "have-nots," increase the difficulty of making Socialism a reality.
Communism’s actual definition: As with Socialism, the definition of Communism is deeply intertwined with Marxist theory. Again, Marx based his theories on a progression of history concerning the conflict between the "haves" and "have-nots." Just as Socialism was a step in this historical progression, so too is Communism. To refresh, let us diagram Marx’s historical progression:
Key: Economic/Political System Name ("have group"-"have-not group")
As described above, the purpose of the Socialist state is to violently remove all remains of the capitalist system. When this has been accomplished in all nations around the world, the need for government will disappear, and according to Marx, it will "wither away." The resulting society is called Communism. Communism is first and foremost a utopia, everyone works in a job they love and are best suited for, for the simple love of the job and to provide for other members of the community. Each member of the community receives from the others everything they need, nothing more nothing less, there is no need for a government because everyone believes in the system and there is nothing to divide them. For Marx, all history was building toward this bright and beautiful "end of history."
The Media definition of Communism and why it’s wrong: Communism usually gets lumped into the same definition pile with Socialism. For most in the media, they are interchangeable. As is evident from those who coined the term and espouse the ideology, they are not the same, the goal of Socialism is Communism, and Communism is a stateless utopia that is the end of history, any other definition outside of this is incorrect. Much like Socialism, there can be no "slow creep" to Communism, it can only be achieved through the sudden violence of the Socialist state.
Progressivism's actual definition: The word "Progressive" has largely come to replace the politically charged term "liberal" in many political debates today. I personally welcome this change, as the term is very accurate in describing the American left. The term itself originated in the early 1900s as a way to describe mostly middle and upper class, urban, reform minded individuals responding to the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism. In the period historically known as "The Second Industrial Revolution," and "The Gilded Age," (roughly 1865-1900), large scale industrial capitalism had become the dominate economic system in the US. While this form of free market capitalism did indeed bring great wealth, build the middle class, and create innovations that catapulted the US into the forefront of the world stage, it had many detractors.
During this period, violent strikes were common during labor disputes (Ex: Pittsburgh’s Homestead Strike), laborers worked 12+ hour shifts in dangerously unregulated industries such as steel and coal, children were commonly put into dangerous factory employment by laboring parents desperate for more income, companies used dubious techniques to establish monopolies in large and important industries, and consumers were exposed to a myriad of unhealthy products (cocaine cough drops, tainted meat, heavy metal poisoning). In short, despite the advances of the age, there were an equal amount of serious problems. In response to these problems, many in the lower classes began turning to Socialist/Communist ideology and Anarchy as a means to solve their problems.
The Progressives were mostly upper and middle class Americans who looked at both the problems of society and the rising popularity of violent Socialist ideology, and began to work both privately and through the government to address the problems. They instituted reforms that regulated working hours, child labor, protected consumers, and broke the power of monopolies. If any one group can be thanked for blunting the influence of Socialist ideology, it is the progressives.
Today’s American left follows in the tradition of the early 1900s progressive movement, and are therefore most accurately described as Progressives. Even the farthest members of the standard American left cannot be called Socialist (because they do not wish for a violent overthrow of the capitalist system), they simply believe in the power of the government to counteract the power of business and improve the lives of lower class Americans.
The Media definition of Progressivism and why it’s wrong: If one man can be given credit for misunderstanding the history of Progressives, it is Glenn Beck. Mr. Beck asserts that they are simply closet Socialists who wish to slowly implement their plans of making America a Socialist state. Because of his lack of knowledge of political terms, he conflates the two groups into one shadow organization that is working toward the downfall of America. His thesis however is completely incorrect for the following reasons (many already stated above):
1.) Creeping Socialism is impossible, all true Socialists believe only in violent revolution to achieve their aims.
2.) Progressivism is a counterbalance to Socialism. Progressivism works to ensure that the most basic human needs are met and that their dignity can be upheld.
3.) Socialists believe that by providing for their basic human needs, Progressives prevent the revolution from happening. The more people are satisfied, the less likely they are to rise up.
4.) A true Socialist prefers the Free-Market Capitalist economic system to the Progressive economic system because of the inequality it provides. The Socialist can readily achieve his goals in this system because there are more unhappy workers to draw to his cause.
Many of the most popular American Media Commentators suffer from a lack of historical and political understanding. While Glenn Beck spouts off about "investigating for yourself," and "real history," his misunderstanding of both Socialism and the Progressive movement shows that he himself does neither. I implore you, if you care about these things, read Marx’s own words yourself (as I have), and read the history of both the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era. Draw your own conclusions, but come with an open mind, for you will be surprised.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of die Schweizer only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
die Schweizer is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: February 18, 2011 11:06:58 AM
In the last month we have all witnessed what happens when Progressives are branded as Socialists, Communists and whatever dangerous lable authoritarian governments give them. By ignoring basic human rights, working conditions and freedoms, these governments have given the true Socialists and those who favor a Theocracy the upper hand.
Many years ago when I was an idealistic undergraduate, I took my Progressive ideas and thought I would find a home among members of the Communist Party USA. I assumed that they would support a Progressive agenda because what true Communist wouldn't favor peace and human dignity? While attending one particular meeting, I was horrified to learn that they generally favored an anti-Progressive agenda because they assumed that the less Progressive America was, the more ripe it would be for the vilolent revolution they craved. I then politely excused myself and never returned.
So for the Glen Beck's of the world who insist on "Red Baiting" those of us who want to make the country a place where all people, regardless of class, live with good health, economic freedom, and dignity, you do so at your own peril!
Posted By: George Dance
Date: February 21, 2011 01:52:46 PM
Fabian socialism, which aims to adopt a socialism that is (1) democratic, not a dictatorship, and (2) established gradually, rather than by a revolution, has been around since 1883. That's not what Marx advocated, but by itself that doesn't mean it's not socialist or that the government controls it's achieved aren't steps toward socialism. Whether they're steps to communism is moot: it's arguable that once socialism is achieved, it will or won't wither away into communism irrespective of how it was achieved.
It is probably true that the Progressive movement had more important backers than the Fabian Socialists -- Gabriel Kolko, for one, writes about how Progressive economic measures followed a big-business agenda of replacing competition with cartelization -- but that does not refute the idea that the Fabian socialists were 100% behind the Progressive agenda as they saw it as 100% in synch with their own.
Posted By: die Schweizer
Date: February 24, 2011 06:42:39 AM
Fabian, or Democratic Socialism is perhaps the most oxymoronic term in the history of political theory. If you take the time to look at what the Fabians advocated (and still advocate) in Britain, you will see that most of their positions are quite anti-Socialist, and have much more in common with the US Progressive movement than true Socialism. The unfortunate fact that they used the term “Socialist” simply leads to confusion. The Fabians were a group of reformers that were indeed more ambitious in their goals than the US Progressives, but at the same time, they rejected the key cornerstone of Socialist thought, the historic struggle of classes and international solidarity of the working class. Instead, the Fabians combined their reform program with a nationalistic love for the British Empire to achieve their goals.
Most "true believer" socialists believed (and still believe) that Fabian/Democratic Socialism is a perversion of their ideals (Trotsky, for instance was a very harsh critic). Marx also criticized various kinds of non-standard "socialists" in the "Communist Mannifesto." Because of this, enmity, Mr. Beck's whole idea of a large scale, gradual, socialist plot doesn't hold up. How can it when revolutionary socialists see Fabian/Democratic socialists as an enemy worse than the capitalist?
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: February 24, 2011 09:33:44 PM
Are you seriously telling us that the hard-line Communist definition of Socialism is the only one you accept? If a state gradually evolved over a century or so from a corporatist economy (like that of the United States) to a mostly state run economy (like the former Soviet Union) and it resulted from the people voting for and electing politicians who brought that about, you would deny that the state had turned socialist just because of your claim that "Socialism could only be achieved through an armed and violent uprising"? Are you familiar with the idiotic "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Because you are guilty of that! It is YOU that equates Communism with Socialism and thus makes socialism look evil. The fact that Communists hated democratic socialists is proof that the Communist vision was destructive and should never have been taken seriously.
For the record, I am a Progressive who despises Soviet style Communism but would accept a form of Socialism voted for by the people. I also think free market capitalism only works fairly with individual business owners and becomes oppressive and abusive with giant corporations.....the very thing Marx and his followers fought against. He should have been a Progressive, and maybe most of the political dangers of the 20th Century wouldn't have happened! DAMN MARX!!!
Posted By: die Schweizer
Date: February 25, 2011 03:08:18 PM
1.) Yes, I seriously am saying that the hardline definition of Socialism is the only acceptable one.
2.) States cannot evolve towards a socialist state. The entire point of socialism is to rid first the nation, and then the world of capitalism. Do you think that very many westerners REALLY want the complete end of Capitalism? Short answer, no, most are like you, they want to modify it and make it a more equitable system. This is the essential difference, if you believe in destroying capitalism completely, you are, by default, a socialist. If you believe that capitalism is good if it is modified (no matter what the degree of modification or state ownership is) then you are a progressive. Socialism isn't voted in slowly because people whose goal it is to destroy systems of thought and economy don't wait for voting.
3.) The No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply here.
If we go back to the original fallacy. Hamish the Scotsman believes that no one can be a Scotsman AND be a depraved sex maniac. The fact is that the definition of a Scotsman is simply "one who lives in Scotland." But, what if the true, accepted, internationally recognized, and longstanding definition of the word "Scotsman" was "one who lives in Scotland and is not a sex maniac." This would mean that Hamish is indeed right, under this definition, the sex maniac is NOT a Scotsman.
I am trying to say that the very definition of being a Socialist is the belief that capitalism must be ended violently in all corners of the world in order to bring about the communist utopia to fruition. If you don't fit into this definition, you are not a socialist.
4.) Marx had every opportunity to turn towards a more progressive path and tone down his revolutionary rhetoric. He didn't, it was always his goal to move all society towards the utopian communist state through revolution, even through he was surrounded by social reformers and early progressives.
