I’ve considered writing this diary for a long while. Its aim is twofold. First, I think it’s about time socialists at DK came forth and were recognized; we form a sizable portion of this community, and our visibility should reflect that. Our intellectual tradition claims some of equality and liberty’s greatest champions—it is emphatically NOT a cause for shame. Second, I’d like to converse seriously with our more moderate brethren within the Democratic Party. If "liberal-as-pejorative" gets under your skin, you can imagine how the even more venomous "socialist-as-pejorative" gets under ours. We may not agree on everything—particularly methods—but we’re natural allies with many shared goals: popular sovereignty; a fairer, freer country for everyone, not only those who can afford it; an end to endless war; and substantive action to ameliorate the climate crisis.
Given pervasive misconceptions—as frequently promulgated by rightists as canny despots—a discussion of socialism properly begins with clarification of what it is, and what it is not. Like liberalism, socialism is multifaceted and diverse, ranging in shades from social democracy to anarchism, with a common thread of unwavering belief in human equality, democracy, and positive freedom.
Socialism is not synonymous with state ownership or central planning, though some have advocated these measures. This may surprise, but many others—myself included—favor a minimal state, seeing government largely as a tool of big business and the owning class—a critique that has gained currency throughout the Bush years. Misnomers like "corporate socialism" for "corporate welfare" or the more precise "corporatism" rob the socialist idea’s enormous power and mass appeal. Of course, the cruelest blows were inflicted by a red bureaucracy that seized and perverted the mantle of equality into tyranny's legitimating veneer.
Simply, socialism is democracy, extended—the answer to the radical questions we ask daily: why must I work under someone else, earning a fraction of the value I produce? Why can't I expend the bulk of my creative energies on a fulfilling endeavor—one I enjoy, rather than endure? Why don't I have a say in what I make and how? Why are some born into opulence while others know nothing but hardship? Why, indeed?
Uniquely among the advanced industrialized countries, we lack a credible socialist alternative—a party that genuinely represents workers' interests AGAINST capital. It’s no coincidence that we also lack free universal health and childcare, affordable college, and high quality public transportation, or that pay is largely stagnant—all despite impressive gains in productivity, less vacation and longer work hours than any of our counterparts.
Because I do not assent to this state of affairs, I’m proud to call myself a radical AND a socialist AND a libertarian, but I’m a pragmatist not a revolutionary.
And that’s why, though not a liberal, I AM a Democrat.
Realistically, the Democratic Party is the only way for a progressive movement to wield electoral power; it is, as Michael Harrington put it, "the left wing of the possible."
Let's expand the possible. Together.
We shouldn't artificially constrain ourselves to acting purely through institutional means. The war needs to end, and it's the people’s job to end it—particularly when our "leaders" are cultivating the fine art of capitulation and CYA. We need to take the streets and remind them that the citizenry is the real source of authority.
We need to get serious, as Gore recently suggested, about direct action against global warming polluters.
And we need to build a vibrant international labor movement to counterbalance the power of multinational corporations.
In all these endeavors, liberals should welcome socialists shoring up their left flank—contributing their voices, ideas, and broadening the scope of debate.