We're All Democratic Socialists Now

 

"Socialism in Milwaukee": Drawing from The Milwaukee Independent, probably ca. 1910-12, when the city had its first Socialist mayor, Emil Zeidel.

I began coming to this idea on election night itself, and the morning after, contemplating the most cautious candidacy, that of Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey—cautious for understandable reasons, I might add, with the most plausible Republican opponent, who'd come scary close to beating Governor Phil Murphy four years earlier, in a state that elects an awful lot of Republican governors for one of its general blueness, but I'd been worrying it had made her so cautious it wasn't good for her, making her really tense and uneasy. The victory speech showed her much better, much less buttoned-up and tight-lipped; energetic and relaxed at the same time. It struck me that it was the first time I'd seen her having a good time during the campaign, and I was honestly happy for her.

But something surprising escaped my notice until the morning airing of radio excerpts, from her acknowledgments of all the volunteers and all she had learned from them:

I was moved during my block walk in Trenton with Shanique because she spoke so passionately about the promise of her city and her neighbors despite the challenges. I love the group of young men from Monroe who have been hard at work on this campaign. They want a seat at the table and they're ready to fight for their future. The little girls who come up to me to say that they're going to be a governor or they're going to be a president. It reminds me of my own belief that anything was possible. Akeem's team, who worked their butts off, knocked over 60,000 doors. Akeem told me these are not the kids who will succeed in Trump's vision of this country. But they will in mine. Union jobs at a time when our economy is set up to make it harder and harder for working people. You know what? They don't just fight for their brothers and sisters in labor. They fight for all of us.

Sherrill, under the guidance of working people she's come to know, has come to a particular kind of view on how things are working: that the industrial economy is "set up" to deprive working people of a fair share of the profits, and that the organized labor movement is an essential part of righting the situation, and that the object is a social movement from which the whole society can benefit, "for all of us."

That's more than a little bit Marxist, whether she understands it that way or not. At a very fundamental level:

• that industrial capitalism, the fostering of industrial growth through capital investment, inherently exploits workers, robbing them of the value they produce;
• that the "point" of the analysis, as Marx says, "is to change" the situation for the better; and
• that whatever is done to change it starts with worker organization.

And not at all incompatible with the more orthodox outline of inevitable class conflict in  Zohran Mamdani's victory speech:

We will hold bad landlords to account because the Donald Trumps of our city have grown far too comfortable taking advantage of their tenants. We will put an end to the culture of corruption that has allowed billionaires like Trump to evade taxation and exploit tax breaks. We will stand alongside unions and expand labor protections because we know, just as Donald Trump does, that when working people have ironclad rights, the bosses who seek to extort them become very small indeed.

Mamdani's socialism has inspired some violent reaction from some people (mostly Gen-Xers, I imagine) who directly identify, like the fictional Alex P. Keaton, with the bloodsucking bourgioisie; after Mamdani had said:

The sun may have set over our city this evening, but as Eugene Debs once said, “I can see the dawn of a better day for humanity.”

(which ought by rights to be about as controversial as Ronald Reagan announcing that it was morning in America, in fact it's practically the same thing),  I saw some unhinged corporate guy from NBC News reacting to the opening of Mamdani's speech with its stirring invocation of the spirit of Eugene V. Debs with real horror etched in his face, as if he'd seen somebody proposing to perform human sacrifices to Moloch.

But I haven't seen much awareness of Debs's role in American history as one of the most popular third-party politicians we've ever had (clearing 6% of the vote in 1912, the year Bull Moose Theodore Roosevelt got better than 27%), a proponent of expanded labor unions, public ownership of utilities, women's suffrage, and an end to child labor, among other things, characterized by Senator Bernard Sanders as "probably the most effective and popular leader that the American working class has ever had". Not the importer of some abomination from Russia or China, but as absolutely American a figure as William Jennings Bryan, or Upton Sinclair, or Henry Wallace, whose cause may well have lost out, but who ought to retain our patriotic respect.

One of the weirdest things about the campaign was the continued professed shock at Mamdani's calling himself a "democratic socialist" and acknowledging his membership in the DSA, as if Bernard Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hadn't been doing the same thing ever since we met them, along with dozens more American politicians young and old from Greg Casar and Rashida Tlaib to my own Rep. Jerry Nadler, from 35 in state and local offices in 2017 to over 250 today. Being a "democratic socialist" is not weird! 

But the word itself remains problematic, burdened perhaps by the horrible vicissitudes of its own history, like Sade's heroine Justine (whose subtitle was, remember, "The Misfortunes of Virtue"), from Utopian experimental communities, all inevitable failures, through science fiction thought experiments, through human disasters like the end of the Franco-Prussian War in Paris to the "scientific socialism" implemented in the USSR, in which it was supposed to represent an evolutionary phase on the physically ineluctable path from reality to communism, which obviously never came close to happening, to the self-parody of "socialism with Chinese characteristics". 

In 2021, I wrote a post on the need to rectify the name of socialism, in the following terms:

I know I shouldn't bother at a time like this, but no. None of these things should be called "socialism". This probably came from a kind-hearted and justice-loving person, but it uses a worthless, nonsensical rightwing pollution of the word "socialism", according to which the word means or probably means "giving cash for nothing to people who probably don't deserve it". That is not what it is supposed to mean. At its narrowest, in the definition you probably learned in middle school, socialism is the name of a concept in political economy, of a kind of developmental midpoint between ideals of "capitalism" and "communism",

• the "capitalist" imaginary being the world in which all economic activity is performed by individuals—capitalists living off the buying and selling and rent of various things they own, property, debts, corporate shares, and the like, and workers who have nothing to sell but their labor—carrying on like an enormous anthill or machine for value creation, with no outside interference from (for example) a state,
• the "socialist" imaginary being the world in which the state, taken over by members of a vanguard workers' party, has seized all the property, debts, corporate shares, and the like, from the capitalists and administers it all really well, so that all the workers, instead of being left to penury and starvation, get paid a fair wage and have lots of time off to cultivate themselves morally, spiritually, and intellectually, and
• the "communist" imaginary being the world from which ownership has simply disappeared, leaving everybody to work just for the love of working and share the fruits of their labor with their friends and neighbors, forever and ever.

Note that this idea is no less unrealistic than the ideas of Milton Friedman (in which completely ejecting the state from economic management will turn the inequities of the anthill into its own kind of utopia where justice reigns automatically, dispensed by the marketplace magic, through the blind faith of the population), and a typical economist's idea, shaving off all the messy details of actual human life in favor of the cleanliness and beauty of a model. And the reality of socialist practice within the narrow definition has often meant a system that isn't administered well at all and makes things considerably worse (though as I always say don't forget those great industry-nationalizing nations France and Singapore), as bad as the outcome of an attempt at a pure market economy (Somalia or fictional Mahagonny).

Which is why I'm calling them "imaginaries", in a critical-sociology noun that I'm just trying to learn how to use. Because they have little to do with reality, which makes their usefulness questionable.

A broader and more useful concept is an older one, older than capitalism really, dating at least to the late 14th century and the activities of Father John Ball, who was hanged, drawn, and quartered in the presence of King Richard II at St. Albans, Kent, in 1381, for preaching, to the combatants in Wat Tyler's rebellion, that the division of the English into classes was contrary to the will of God:

When Adam dalf, and Eve span, who was thanne a gentilman? From the beginning all men were created equal by nature, and... servitude had been introduced by the unjust and evil oppression of men, against the will of God, who, if it had pleased Him to create serfs, surely in the beginning of the world would have appointed who should be a serf and who a lord

Not, you see, that property should not exist, as in the communist model, but that it shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of one set of people and excluded from the other set, that it should be more equitably distributed across the society, socialized; not that everybody should be a serf but that everybody should be a lord, on a very modest scale—if not by the violent expedients Ball advocated,

"uprooting the tares that are accustomed to destroy the grain; first killing the great lords of the realm, then slaying the lawyers, justices and jurors, and finally rooting out everyone whom they knew to be harmful to the community in future"

then by some more comfortable method like politics (which, contrary to Clausewitz, is war continued by other means, not the other way around). That is all you really need to understand about socialism, in my opinion, common to Owenites, Fourierians, St-Simonists, Proudhonists and Marxists, Craftsmen and Wobblies, Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, and all the microfactions that have come up since the 14th century in their fissiparous frenzy: the world should not be divided between those who live on sweat and those who live on rent, but everybody deserves a bit of both, and redistribution through politics is how it should be done. That is all you really need to understand about socialism, in my opinion, common to Owenites, Fourierians, St-Simonists, Proudhonists and Marxists, Craftsmen and Wobblies, Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, and all the microfactions that have come up since the 14th century in their fissiparous frenzy: the world should not be divided between those who live on sweat and those who live on rent, but everybody deserves a bit of both, and redistribution through politics is how it should be done.

And that, in my view, is the socialism that Zohran Mamdani and Mikie Sherill may be said to share with the reasonably (not extravagantly) progressive-minded members of their party, DSA and not: that the practices of  capitalism do bad things to working people, and collective action can, and should, ameliorate them to a really meaningful degree.