Democratic Socialism – The Next Red Scare

Sometimes it simply is not necessary to “re-invent the wheel”.  I began working on a post for this blog several days ago, attempting to define the term “Democratic Socialism”, in hopes of putting to rest the many misconceptions that surround the ideology of Bernie Sanders.  It has been a struggle, as there are as many ways of defining it as there are Skittles in a pack, and my post de-railed when I realized that I had written over 3,500 words and still not quite made the point I was trying to make!  Then I discovered an article on, an “alternative news” website that provides as good an explanation as any I would write, so what follows is a “slightly condensed” version of that article. I have shortened it from the original and added a few of my own comments for clarification (italicized). If you prefer to read the entire article, I have included the link below.  Please note the site does contain ads and funding requests.

Source: Democratic Socialism – The Next Red Scare


The Red Scare over the success of Bernie Sanders’s campaign has begun. Sanders and his supporters are now expected to explain on a regular basis why it is that socialism isn’t going to destroy America and how any of his policy proposals will be paid for. Oddly, none of the Republicans running for president or their supporters are expected explain how they will pay for all of the wars they apparently want to fight or how all of their tax plans that include enormous tax cuts for the wealthy won’t add to our deficits and debt.

Because Bernie proudly wears the “democratic socialist” label to describe his political philosophy, people now equate his policy proposals with socialism as an economic system. The most basic definition of socialism, taught to secondary students across the country, is that socialism is an economic system where the means of production (and distribution) are publically owned by the state whereas in a free-market system the means of production are privately owned by individuals. Only one of Bernie’s proposals involves the government taking over a private, for-profit industry, and that is health care insurance. The doctors and hospitals would still be privately owned, but the payment method for medical services would be a single-payer Medicare for All program.

If you ask someone who knows anything about Europe, they will tell you either a) that Bernie’s “socialism” is nothing to be afraid of, or b) that Bernie really isn’t even a socialist, but more accurately a “social democrat” similar to those who belong to Britain’s Labour Party, France’s Socialist Party, or Germany’s Social Democratic Party. Most Americans do not understand that all of our Western, democratic, capitalist allies from Canada to Australia to Western and Central Europe, have a major party whose political agenda is identical to Bernie’s. Most Americans do not understand that all of our Western, democratic, capitalist allies already provide health care insurance to all of their citizens, highly subsidize higher education, Pre-K, and child care, and guarantee paid family leave and vacation time. These countries have what could rightly be called “socialist” or “social democratic” programs within a regulated, free-market, capitalist economy. Enacting Bernie’s ideas does not change the economic system of the United States, it simply shifts taxing and spending priorities towards the middle and working classes.

Will taxes have to be raised in order to pay for these programs? Absolutely. Will taxes have to be raised on middle class families, as well? Absolutely. Will taxes have to be significantly raised on the top 1%? Absolutely. But, let us be clear. If we choose to raise taxes to pay for new programs that doesn’t mean that we no longer have a free-market, capitalist economy or that we have lost our rights and freedoms.

Who is more free: the person whose [sic] loses their health care insurance when they lose their job, don’t have any health care insurance through their employer at all, who can’t realistically change jobs because of the changes to their health care insurance, or the person whose health care insurance stays the same regardless of their employment?

Who is more free: the person who has to choose between quitting their job in order to have children, paying for full-time daycare, settling for part-time work, or the person who can stay home with a newborn, receive a portion of their income, and then return to their job?

Who is more free: the person whose parents dictate where they can go to school and what they can study, the person who cannot attend college at all due to cost, the person who must take out enormous loans that will saddle them (with) student debt for years after they graduate, or the person who can attend trade school, community college, or a university tuition free?

For equal opportunity and the pursuit of happiness to be a reality, individuals have to come together and pay for the programs, services, and opportunities that enable people to pursue their goals. In the globalized, competitive economy of the 21st century, where middle class wages have not been able to keep pace with the rising costs of child care, health care, and higher education, it is now time for the United States to enter the third phase of constructing a social welfare state that enables individuals to develop their potential and live fulfilling lives (and thus have the capacity to add value to the nation).

The first phase was FDR’s New Deal and the creation of Social Security. The second phase was LBJ’s Great Society and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. The third phase began under Barack Obama and should continue under Bernie Sanders with the creation of paid family leave, publically-funded higher education, and expansions of Social Security and Medicare. The Republican Party argues that we should cut social spending, privatize existing social programs, and cut taxes in order to achieve economic growth. The problem with this approach is that no amount of economic growth will increase wages enough to enable working class and middle class families to pay for child care, Pre-K, and higher education on their own. (highlighting added by Filosofa)

The choice that Americans face is whether they think the free-market can be trusted to create the conditions within which individuals can provide everything for themselves, or whether it makes sense given new economic realities to begin publically-funding important programs in order to guarantee equal opportunity. The economic pie can obviously still grow, but it is unclear whether the gains from that growth are naturally distributed in such a way that working and middle class families can succeed.

Recent history, not simply the recovery from the Great Recession, but fiscal and social policy since the 1980s, indicates that without government programs that consciously direct economic gains towards child care, health care, and education the working and middle classes will struggle to afford those things that make live [sic] enjoyable while a small minority amasses more income and wealth than they could possibly ever need or spend in their lifetimes.

Bernie’s “democratic socialism” is about rebuilding the middle class that used to exist before tax cuts and spending cuts shifted more wealth towards the top and more costs onto working and middle class families. It’s pretty simply, those at the top have become wealthier than ever while everyone else struggles to pay for the things that they used to be able to afford while still saving money for retirement. The American Dream has been under attack for awhile [sic] now. Those who benefit from this redistribution of wealth towards the top will try to scare you away from the solutions to the problems facing us by arguing that “socialism” will destroy our economy. Tell them that the “socialism” of Franklin Roosevelt, or even Dwight Eisenhower for that matter, sounds just fine to you.


Thoughts on relevancy …

There are a number of things that people ought to be concerned about on this planet, in this century. Among them are:

• The environment
• World hunger
• Terrorism (global and home-grown)
• Bigotry and discrimination
• Sustainable energy sources
• Decline in educational levels in U.S.
• Human Rights violations worldwide
• Violence and persecution in the Middle East
• Russia’s apparent intent to establish a soviet-style empire
• Gun regulation and violent crime

Note that this is my own list, roughly prioritized by my own philosophies, and everybody will have a slightly different idea of what is or isn’t important. I get that and it doesn’t bother me in the least. Obviously there are many, many more issues of importance, but I limited my list to my top ten, in hopes of finishing this article sometime today. I should also add that the health, well-being and happiness of my friends and family are high on my priority list, but I did not include them in the above list, as that is a personal priority, not a public one.

That said, let me put forth another list, this time of things that people ought NOT to be concerned about:
• Caitlyn Jenner
• Anything Kardashian
• Anything Duggar
• The amount of air in a football
• Any sports persona
• What people wear to shop at Wal-Mart
• George Clooney
• Lindsay Lohan/Miley Cyrus

Are you getting the picture? People are only relevant in my world if either a) I know them personally, or b) they are world leaders or in a position to make changes (positive or negative) in the world. By this definition, a political candidate may be considered relevant, but not his/her personal life. I do not care if he/she had an affair or smoked pot in college … it is not my business, will not affect my judgement of him/her, and I will not waste my precious time reading about it. If I read and study about just the ten issues in the first list, then I certainly don’t have time to care about any of the things in the second list. So why is it that both mainstream and social media seem to be flooding the airwaves with the “B-list” stories? Is this what we, as a society, have been reduced to? Do we not have enough to do in our own lives that we need to concern ourselves with the day-to-day trivia in the life of a total stranger?
My own criteria for determining relevancy is whether, ten years from now, it will likely still matter. Think about that and re-read the lists. I would stake my life-savings on the fact that every single item in the first list will continue being an issue in ten years and will be in history books 100 years from now. I will also bet that any name on list two will be long-forgotten, replaced by yet some other shallow sports/entertainment “celebrity” of the next decade. According to the Washington Post, there are now more than 300 “reality” shows on television. Seriously??? Television producers only produce shows that make money through advertising, and advertisers only support shows that people watch, so this means that the bulk of people are actually spending their valuable time watching other people live their lives instead of living their own lives. I find this a sad statement about our society. Does anybody else?