The Washington Post’s Elizabeth Bruenig published a column on Sunday about the evolving definition of socialism. It’s not just an academic indulgence—it’s a relevant topic, given the Democratic party’s and voters’ curiosity with such a system, and the abuse and misuse of political terminology in public discourse. The right labels some left-of-center public figures as “socialist” when it’s unwarranted, for example, just as the press and the left label some right-of-center public figures as “ultraconservative” without disclosing what is meant by “ultra.”
Read in context, the use of such descriptions often is intended to alarm the public, not inform it. Bruenig—given that she wrote earlier this year that “It’s time to give socialism a try”—obviously was going for the latter. She did not, however, determine a contemporary definition of the word. “[N]ow, as in the 19th century, confusion about what ‘socialism’ means is stoked by political interest in clouding the issue,” she wrote, singling out conservatives who struggle to decide whether Nordic economies are capitalist or socialist.
“Clarifying exactly what ‘socialism’ means once and for all likely won’t happen anytime soon,” she followed.
But the people claiming a “socialist” designation themselves are to blame for this lack of clarity, too. Take Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the leading light of “democratic socialism,” which seems to mean really bold progressivism: Medicare for all instead of just Obamacare, free public college and not just student loan forgiveness, and so forth. Ocasio-Cortez, who has said she’s liberated to advocate such policies given the composition of her House district in Queens, frequently promotes her platform on Twitter. On Sunday, however, she added some decidedly non-socialist items to it:
Back home after a lovely few days off enjoying US examples of Democratic Socialism, like:
– Acadia National Park
– Café Co-ops (Def Top 5 best breakfast sandwiches I’ve ever had ?)
– Supporting worker-owned businesses
– Bonus: Spotted a @PPact helping people, per usual✌?? pic.twitter.com/xmiYXutfpS— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) August 19, 2018
Disregarding the Planned Parenthood non sequitur, this seems to imply two things: One, that government activity in any part of society could be considered socialism, and two, that private activity could be considered socialist if it produces a result of which socialists approve.
The National Park System is not socialism in action: It is a mix of public goods, like monuments, and government maintenance of park land, which is not an interruption of private economic activity or a usurpation of private property rights. Claiming otherwise is part of a years-old Internet meme, which stated that the NPS, like the FBI, the military, and local police departments, were all “socialist programs.” As Charles C.W. Cooke wrote, “By pretending that all government action is socialism and that we are thus haggling only over degrees, the meme’s makers hope to imply that there is a certain hypocrisy at play. ‘Given that you support roads and the sewage system,’ this line of argument goes, ‘one has to wonder why you oppose nationalizing the health-care system, as has been done in Britain.’”
Such reasoning does not shed light on what socialism is or is designed to achieve, unless the working definition is, as framed by Merriam-Webster, “a system of society or group living in which there is no private property … a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.”
The Democratic Socialists of America say they reject this approach to government: “Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy.” But they do support federally owned public parks. They have that in common with Republicans: Senators Rob Portman and Lamar Alexander have been pushing legislation the last month that would address a $12 billion maintenance backlog in the Park Service. The bill is co-sponsored by senators Mark Warner and Angus King, who both caucus with the Democrats. “This bipartisan legislation would … ensure that parks from Acadia to Zion will remain open and available for years to come,” said King.
The park system aside, cooperative businesses and employee-owned businesses are both contrasts to the shareholder value model that the left—and anyone with a populist inkling, really—condemns. But these are “socialist” the same way that a domineering factory boss is an “authoritarian.” Cooperatives are private and a voluntary way to organize. Employee-owned businesses are not novel: Publix and Hy-Vee, two major regional supermarket chains, are set up in such a way. Empowering workers may be a socialist tenet, but not every empowerment of workers is socialism.
As a matter of policymaking, Ocasio-Cortez’s “democratic socialism” is a clear platform. It’s one that’s been pushed and poll-tested by the House Progressive Caucus: Their “most intensely popular policies,” read a memo prepared in March by Democratic pollster Lake Research Partners, “focus on prescription drugs, health care, infrastructure, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and cracking down on Wall Street.” That’s nothing new for the progressive left—the question confronting its adherents is not one of substance, but of ambition.
But when it comes to understanding Ocasio-Cortez’s broader worldview, few people, right, left, or Ocasio-Cortez herself, are providing much insight. Contra the Republican National Committee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not a “mini Maduro,” since there is no evidence she aspires to be an autocrat who oversees sham elections. But contra Ocasio-Cortez, a fishing trip to Yellowstone is not a celebration of Marx and Engels.
