This was not a slow news summer. When I think of the season’s biggest stories, I think of the conflicts between Ukraine and Russia and between Israel and Hamas and how sad it is that they continue. I think about the Epstein files and the “client list” dispute and how this has been an issue for years. I think, too, about violent crime still existing in this country and how the vast majority of us want it solved but oft differ in how to solve it. Sometimes the news can be a little overwhelming.
One of the other big summer stories, no doubt, was the emergence of Zohran Mamdani, winning the June Democratic primary for the mayor of New York City — now viewed as the fall favorite due to the city’s demographic, partisan makeup.
Mamdami is a 33 year old, native of Kampala, Uganda, and in my opinion, an articulate, bright-sounding individual. What’s unique about him as a mayoral candidate, is that while identifying as a Democrat, he is also a member of the more obscure Democratic Socialists of America.
My sense is that sometimes an identification is more or less attractive to us because of what we don’t know. If we’re frustrated with capitalism, for example, feeling like it hasn’t worked for us, maybe socialism sounds more attractive even though we don’t understand what it really is; we’re attracted because it’s something different. Let’s attempt today to understand what the different actually is.
We must first ask: what’s the difference between socialism and democratic socialism? Such is a fair and necessary question.
Unfortunately, the difference is ambiguous. Some distinguish between the two by acknowledging that socialism is a broad economic system centered on the idea of government or community ownership of the means of production as opposed to private ownership; whereas, democratic socialism works to achieve socialist ideals within primarily existing structures. Democratic socialists believe in strong welfare states rather than a complete abolition of capitalism. What’s also true, therefore, is that while all democratic socialists are socialists in their goals, not all socialists are democratic socialists. Many socialists advocate for authoritarian methods to achieve their economic objectives.
What too is true is that the term “socialist” is viewed negatively by a majority of American people. Granted, studies have shown in recent years that younger generations (particularly Millennials and Gen Z’ers) have a higher regard for socialism than those who’ve gone before them, although such may also fit into the quandary previously presented of not understanding what it really is. Hence, while there is an ambiguous difference between a socialist and a democratic socialist, the chosen terminology may or may not correlate more with popularity than actual political ideology.
Socialist systems are designed to reduce perceived disparities in income and wealth. They tend to provide universal access to a determined set of basic needs, such as healthcare, education and housing — often at no cost to the individual. It also is oft believed to manage public services well, such as in regard to road repairs and emergency services. The philosophy prioritizes the collective over the individual.
Because of that collective focus, socialism also inhibits innovation; social ownership reduces the personal incentive for innovation and hard work that exists in a competitive, for-profit market. Additionally, there is a strong risk of authoritarianism as witnessed historically. True, too, is that socialist economies lack price signals that typically guide production and resource allocation. Costs can become incredibly expensive and difficult to maintain, especially during a recession, when more people require services while government tax revenue simultaneously decreases. To fund the social programs, significantly higher taxes are necessary.
Recognizing the difference in terminology then, where has socialism worked? Where has it not?
The reality is that there is no consensus on where socialism has “worked.” While some cite the Nordic model and historical Israeli kibbutzim as examples of social democracy with socialist elements, most political scientists and economists agree that these are primarily capitalist with social safety nets; in other words, they are not true socialism. We should thus be keenly observant of the countries described as socialist, like China and Vietnam, which have blended socialist principles with market economies, and then those with explicitly socialist aims, such as Venezuela and the former Soviet Union. Each has faced significant failures.
With democratic socialism, it’s thus prudent to understand how strictly the fundamentals of socialism are to be applied. Such would help us discern how attractive said philosophy may actually be.
Respectfully…
AR