The New Socialists

There are times when I simply stare in disbelief at what I am reading. Today in the New York Times, there was a piece titled "The new socialists" (Link). It was a commentary on the wave of younger politicians, mostly on the local level, following the lead of Bernie Sanders with an unambiguous embrace of socialist policies. The article is written by Corey Robin, a professor of political science at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York Graduate Center. Mr. Robin writes:

Self-identified socialists like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib are making inroads into the Democratic Party, which the political analyst Kevin Phillips once called the “second-most enthusiastic capitalist party” in the world. Membership in the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in the country, is skyrocketing,especially among young people.

Mr. Robin delves into the source of the appeal. He goes on write that:

The socialist argument against capitalism isn’t that it makes us poor. It’s that it makes us unfree. 

Socialism means different things to different people. For some, it conjures the Soviet Union and the gulag; for others, Scandinavia and guaranteed income. But neither is the true vision of socialism. What the socialist seeks is freedom.

Under capitalism, we’re forced to enter the market just to live. The libertarian sees the market as synonymous with freedom. But socialists hear “the market” and think of the anxious parent, desperate not to offend the insurance representative on the phone, lest he decree that the policy she paid for doesn’t cover her child’s appendectomy. Under capitalism, we’re forced to submit to the boss. Terrified of getting on his bad side, we bow and scrape, flatter and flirt, or worse — just to get that raise or make sure we don’t get fired.

The socialist argument against capitalism isn’t that it makes us poor. It’s that it makes us unfree. When my well-being depends upon your whim, when the basic needs of life compel submission to the market and subjugation at work, we live not in freedom but in domination. Socialists want to end that domination: to establish freedom from rule by the boss, from the need to smile for the sake of a sale, from the obligation to sell for the sake of survival........
The socialist, by contrast, believes that making things free makes people free.

Say what? Making things free makes people free? However, things are not free and cannot be free. We are inherently dependent upon others for our existence, unless we can take care of all our needs without anyone else's help. That is essentially impossible. Yes we are forced to enter the "market" to live, but remember what markets are. They are places where people are free to enter into voluntary agreements with other like minded people who are free to interact or not. That is the nature of freedom.

What alternatives do we have other than voluntary exchanges or interactions?  The alternatives are limited to no exchanges or forced exchanges. Humans can function at three basic levels; as single individuals, as individuals as part of groups where members participate voluntarily, and part of members of states where the state has the power to coerce its members. Market exchanges are marked by freedom to participate or not. States are defined by their authority to force members to comply. States have the proverbial ability to hold a gun to your head. Socialism highlights state ownership and control.

I believe that in a world that seems to be marked by political gridlock, one of the attractions of Socialism is its promise to use the power of the state to force those who might be viewed as hindering getting things done into complying with those who believe themselves to be right. For those who hold a strong and unwavering vision of being right, this perspective can act as a siren's song. However, one needs to remember that creating pathways increasingly unbridled power will attract those who are most motivated to harness that type of power, and tend to be least constrained by moral scruples that would limit their exercise of power.

It is reasonable to have pointed discussions regarding the failings of market based systems. However, those discussions need to be coupled with honest discussions of failures and catastrophes of unbridled state power. There might be disagreements as to all the particulars of how to define Socialism, but there is agreement that it is at its most basic level, an expansion of state power.