Socialism is Still a Four-Letter Word

  

Once again, Democrats are dealing with the S-word. Socialism. 

Not the economic theory. Not the Marxian doctrine. Not state ownership of the means of production. Nothing nearly so intellectual.

No, they’re dealing with the word itself, and this time it’s not Republicans using it as a bludgeon to beat Democrats into submission, though that will certainly continue, probably forever.

Rather, it’s Democratic candidates embracing one of the most politically charged words in the English language. This is not a risk-free proposition, and I hope they know what they’re doing.

In the last few years, New York City has emerged as ground zero for a new brand of progressivism that labels itself socialist, but really isn’t. It’s more related to the social democrats of Europe, which is to say it’s about capitalism with regulatory guardrails and, presumably, a social conscience.

Starting with the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2018, and her sweeping aside of ten-time incumbent John Crowley, there’s been a new kind of Democrat in town. The election of Zohran Mamdani made this even more explicit. And now that several of Mamdani’s hand-picked candidates have won their primary fights in NYC, we have something we haven’t seen in a long time — a real leftist turn in the Democratic Party.

That primary, last month, touched off plenty of hand-wringing among establishment Democrats — not to mention the mainstream press — about the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). These mostly young candidates are taking aim at much of the old guard, and there are plenty of signs, even in the heartland, that they’re mad as hell. People are starting to listen.

DSA is not a political party. With the notable exception of Bernie Sanders, most are Democrats, and they work within the Democratic Party. Bernie, as far as I know, still hasn’t joined the Party.

While I’d rather not dwell on language, it’s almost unavoidable. I have to say again that the word “socialism” is doing DSA no favors. I have enormous kinship with many of their aims, but I question their need to call themselves socialists. The word carries very little upside and a lavishly documented downside.

Just to add to the confusion, much of which is linguistic, these people are not socialists in any traditional sense. They are not putting anything in classical Marxian terms. They are not looking for government to take over the means of production. They are not talking about dialectical materialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat. They are not thinking about collectivizations or nationalizations.

Actually, that’s not true. There is one glaring exception, and we’ll need to pay attention, because we’re about to start hearing a lot about Darializa Avila Chevalier. She’ll soon be in Congress. She’ll be representing parts of Manhattan and the Bronx, with a constituency of mostly Dominican, Puerto Rican, and African-American voters, so she could hold this seat for twenty years if she wants. She arrives on the scene as a notorious bomb-thrower, which has some Democrats questioning Mamdani’s judgment in endorsing her. When I say there are no Marxian purists in DSA, she is about as close as they come.

In her past — which at age 32 is not lengthy — she has openly advocated abolishing the police and nationalizing all utilities, hospitals, and pharma companies. In 2019, she explicitly said “seize the means of production.”

But where she’s been particularly provocative has been on the anti-Israel front, where her rhetoric has gone right to the edge of antisemitism. One could argue whether she’s gone over that edge or not, but this is an inflammatory topic, especially in New York, and she has left no flame unfanned. She has openly questioned the legitimacy of Israel’s right to exist.

Of course, the Netanyahu regime has given her a lot of material to work with. Between the eradication of Gaza and the ultra-destructive Iran war — not to mention Bibi’s on-again-off-again bromance with Trump — even Chevalier’s more extreme views are finding their way into the mainstream.

When confronted about these positions these days, she neither defends nor disavows them. She basically ignores the obvious gotcha questions and moves on to more substantive subjects, like what she plans to work on in Congress, which — bomb-throwing rhetoric aside — is more-or-less the standard progressive agenda.

I, for one, have learned to admire skills like those, even if I don’t share her beliefs. If socialist dogma drives Chevalier’s activities as an elected official, how is that different from religious dogma driving Mike Johnson’s, whose beliefs are literally killing us? In both cases, it’s not what they say — or believe — it’s what they do.

Far from avoiding the word, Chevalier flaunts her socialism. She has leaned into the classic Marxian tenets that are implied but rarely honored in the real world. That makes her highly unusual, even among her fellow DSA candidates. When she takes office, we can expect that her visibility — and hence her views — will likely be on display for many years to come. And what seems radical now could be conventional wisdom by the next election cycle.

DSA has also endorsed Francesca Hong for governor of Wisconsin, where the electorate couldn’t be more different than NYC, and where she is, quite understandably, downplaying the S-word. As with Chevalier, she’s not disavowing it, she’s just reading the room. She’s playing to the obvious dissatisfactions of her badly abused constituency. Again, it’s the same basic progressive agenda, framed so that even a three-time-Trump-voting dairy farmer can relate to it.

But that gets back to my problem with the S-word. The agenda in question can stand on its own these days. Any association with socialism just adds a layer of suspicion and distrust, in my mind unnecessarily. With what Trump has done to this country, there’s nothing radical — or even especially progressive — about the things these candidates are running on. Which is why, when pollsters ask about the specific policies being discussed — healthcare, reproductive rights, environment, cost-of-living, you know the list — the respondents are overwhelmingly in favor of all of them. Only when you attach the S-word do they turn negative.

Curiously, there’s another twist to this dynamic. Republicans have, just in the last week, moved on from ‘socialism’ to ‘communism.’ From Trump on down, Fox and the entire right-wing echo chamber have channeled their inner Joe McCarthy. Between now and the midterms, everything Democrats stand for — including restoring the ACA subsidies before it either kills or financially ruins large numbers of Republican voters — will be framed as, yes, communism. I wish I could say it won’t work.

But depending on how the midterms go, these Democratic newcomers, whatever their beliefs, are about to acquire a nice little slice of power. They’ve been demanding that the old guard of the Democratic party step aside, and it appears they’ve successfully forced the issue.

The question now becomes what they do with that power. Is their progressive agenda merely a mask for something more radical, an incremental step toward the “pure” socialism of Soviet-style collectivizations and nationalizations?

Personally I doubt it, Chevalier’s postures notwithstanding. But the larger question is who cares? What the DSA candidates are calling for is basically what we all want: a fairer society where the rich pay their share and there’s a working safety net for the rest of us.

And while I personally think the S-word hurts that agenda more than helps, if they can pull those two things off, I don’t care what they call it.