Mamdani & The Socialism Canard

Every time Democrats propose having the government provide new assistance to those in need or a new regulation of business, the Republicans cry out, “This is Socialism.”

But after Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, his fellow Democrats beat them to it. They were aroused primarily, I think, because they feared what a negative reaction to Mamdani from big business would do to Democrats' chances nationally in the upcoming mid-term elections. They should be ashamed of themselves for having become so beholden to big business and for joining Republicans in criticizing by labeling a suggestion for dealing with current societal problems that is consistent with our form of economy.

Let's get something straight. The U.S. is far from a pure capitalist, free-market economy. We have in fact a mixed economy, where the means of production are privately held—and thus capitalist—but where there is much government intervention to control the economy, both on behalf of individuals and corporations—which is an aspect of socialism.

Much of the problem stems from our tendency to label people and things. Even Bernie Sanders and Mamdani call themselves "democratic socialists." But they are not socialists in any meaningful sense of the word because socialists advocate that the public own all means of production.

For example, Britain nationalized major strategic heavy industries and public utilities between 1946 and the early 1950s, only to return them to the private sector during the Thatcher years. Britain during this period was indeed primarily socialist. Additionally, Eugene V. Debs, a U.S. presidential candidate of the Socialist Party in the early 1900s, was a socialist because he believed in the collective public ownership of industry by workers.

In the past, when Republicans cried, "socialism," a large segment of the public, Republicans, would nod their head like hypnotized subjects and agree that this was terrible. It is against what makes America great; not as bad as Communism, but close. But Democrats, at least in New York, did not have this aghast reaction because they had heard Mamdani and listened to him and thought his ideas were basically good.

Republicans have been pulling this scare tactic for decades. For example, in 1961, Ronald Reagan referred to the proposal to establish Medicare as socialized medicine and warned of its potentially disastrous impact on healthcare. To listen to Republicans, one would think that they were against any government spending or action that helps others or in any way interferes with the marketplace. That, however, is not the case.

Republicans are generally supportive of the billions of dollars that the government spends, either in the form of direct payments or favorable tax laws, which provide American corporations, especially large businesses, with government subsidies. They are also very supportive of government regulation/intervention that supports corporations, such as elements of the farm bill. NOTE: Almost all government farm subsidies go to large corporate farms. The embattled family farmer benefits hardly at all.

The only difference between the spending and regulation they support and the ones they don’t support and label socialism is that the former benefit big business while the latter either benefit the average American or protect him by restricting the unfettered ability of big business to act as it will.

This is hypocrisy. However, the immorality of their stance is even more egregious. To argue against measures that protect the average American or help those in need while supporting spending and other measures that help those who are not in need is to take an immoral stand.

“Ah,” they say, “but cutting back on such spending or measures will harm American business on which the economy depends and will result in the loss of jobs.” Any attempts to cut back on these items or impose new costs on business are labeled “job killers” by Republicans.

But that is not true. What is true is that if such subsidies are cut back or new costs imposed, corporate profits will be reduced (unless they raise prices) and thus shareholders will be impacted by lower stock market prices for their shares.

I am not opposed to corporations making a good profit and benefiting their shareholders. However, many of these companies have profits at such high levels that the benefits to the larger society of cutbacks or new regulations/costs far outweigh the reduced profits to the industry. For example, many of our largest and most profitable corporations pay almost no taxes through the loopholes they enjoy.

The cost to the American taxpayer of these corporate subsidies is unconscionable, especially when the American middle class and the poor are being asked to make sacrifices (cuts in supportive government programs) to reduce the government deficit. It is obscene that our middle class and poor are asked to shoulder the costs of providing subsidies to those who typically already have more money than they know what to do with, other than spend it on more luxury.

The American social contract has traditionally (since the early 20th century) required all parts of our society to support the greater good, each to its ability. That concept of fairness and the greater good has been so denigrated over the course of the last few decades by the Republican Party that Republicans in government should hang their heads in shame.

Big business/corporations play a very important role in our society and economy. The government has a role in both providing an economic environment in which businesses can prosper and securing the public good and the rights of individuals. In the initial phase of the Industrial Revolution, the advantage was overwhelmingly in favor of industry and the robber barons. During the 20th century, a balance was struck between the rights of business, the public good/the rights of individuals, as well as the duties of government. Over the past few decades, this balance has shifted, with corporations gaining more power at the expense of the public good. That balance must not just be restored, but the interests of the public good should be strengthened. (See my posts, “What Is the Role of Corporations in Our Society?" and “Towards a Reformed Capitalism.”)

As for the socialism canard, so long as the means of production are in private hands, there is no socialism. Government regulation of business or the professions to secure the public good is not socialism; it is capitalism with a heart, in keeping with the role given government in the Declaration of Independence: to ensure the rights of all to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Democratic Party should not join the Republican chorus against "socialism" because that undermines their historic position that government intervention is often needed to protect the public and ensure their rights.

Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com