Robert Reich: So Much for Socialism

"The Trump regime is using the specter of socialism to make America even more authoritarian. The regime will lose.

When Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem unleashed her ICE shock troops on Los Angeles last month, she said: “We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist” leaders.

Minutes later, California Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from the press conference and put in handcuffs.

The specter of socialism is being used by Trump and his goons to make America even more authoritarian.

Trump even threatens to “run” New York City if its voters choose Zohran Mamdani — a Muslim of Indian descent and avowed democratic socialist — as their next mayor. “We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to,” says Trump, warning that he might step in and take control if New Yorkers elect Mamdani.

Trump is using the word “socialism” to slam everything the public needs and to justify cruel cuts in the nation’s safety net.

Trump’s just-enacted Big Ugly Bill will push more than 11 million Americans off Medicaid. Another 2 million Americans will lose food stamps. The savings will help finance a big tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

But the next time they’re up for election, Republican lawmakers may be shocked to discover how many Americans prefer the “socialism” of Medicaid and food stamps to the socialism-for-the-rich tax cuts in the Big Ugly.

Medicaid alone has 83 percent favorability. Among Republicans, it’s a remarkable 74 percent.

Trump and his lackeys are living in another century if they think they can use “socialism” as a cudgel.

As early as 2011, the Pew Research Center found that almost as many voters under the age of 30 held a positive view of socialism as of capitalism.

During the 2016 Democratic primaries and then again in 2020, young people all over America wore buttons reading “feel the Bern” in honor of democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.

Whether it’s called socialism, democratic socialism, or enlightened capitalism, societies need to pool resources for the common good... 

Source:Robert Reich talking about something he knows very well, but has never officially embraced as his own philosophy.

From Robert Reich

Since I originally started blogging back in 2009, during the early days of the Great Recession, first on Free State MD (both on Blogger and WordPress) I've been interested in socialism (both democratic and otherwise) and have been writing about it (off and on) for the last 16 years. 

The classical definition of a Socialist, is someone who believes in: 

"The common ownership of the means of production and the idea of a post-capitalist society. It involves a move away from private ownership of factories, land, and other resources, towards social or collective ownership, often with the goal of achieving greater equality and social justice." 

And to a certain extent (CNN anchor Abby Phillip is the perfect example of that) that's still the mainstream media's definition of who is a Socialist. Which is why closeted Socialists like the Robert Reich's and others, are able to hide behind "Progressive" and in some cases, but fewer cases today, "Liberal". 

But outside of the Communist Republic of Korea, almost no one in the world anymore, believes in eliminating property rights and private enterprise, all together. Regulating those things, even taxing them heavily, sure. If you are what the rest of the developed world calls a Social Democrat, or even a Socialist. 

And this blog talks about classical liberalism and versus what some people call "modern liberalism"... The problem there, is what's called "modern liberalism", is essentially the opposite of liberalism. I mean "modern liberalism" has as much in common with liberalism (or what some people call "classical liberalism", as what socialism has in common with conservatism. 1 philosophy is about protecting the collective and using government to do that. The other philosophy is about the individual and conserving the individual's, individual rights. 

I mean if you want to call today's Socialists "Modern Socialists", thats fine. But what the Robert Reich's of the world and many others on the left-wing in America talk about, when they're talking about their own political philosophy, it's what the rest of the world calls social democracy, or even just a democratic form of socialism. Mr. Reich made that clear his blog post about socialism, when he said: 

"Whether it’s called socialism, democratic socialism, or enlightened capitalism, societies need to pool resources for the common good... 

Before Alexandria O. Cortez and her Socialist Squad and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, leading the fight with their political fists in the air, there was Ted Kennedy, at least to a certain extent in the 1980s and 90s, as well as Jesse Jackson from those 2 decades, George McGovern in the 1970s, there was Norman Thomas, who from 1928-48, was the Socialist Party's nominee for President an amazing 6 times. His approach to socialism was: 

"Norman Thomas advocated for a democratic socialist approach, distinct from Marxist or Leninist models. He emphasized achieving socialism through gradual, democratic reforms within the existing political system, rather than revolution. He believed in public ownership of key industries and economic planning, but also championed individual liberty and civil rights, making his vision a democratic and evolutionary one." 

However, his vision for a socialist society did not necessarily exclude all forms of private enterprise. In 1944, a report on his book, "What Is Our Destiny?", mentioned that he advocated for a mix of "private enterprise and consumers' cooperatives side by side with public ownership of land and natural resources, money and credit and the great monopolies, including public utilities,". 

From The New York Times in 1944. 

When I think of a Liberal, I think of someone who believes in liberal democracy and all the individual rights, responsibilities, and checks and balances that comes with liberal democracy. That's literally where "liberal democrat" comes from: someone who believes in liberal democracy.

When I think of a Progressive, I think of someone who believes in progress through limited government action. Not someone who thinks government should dominate society and try to manage people's lives for them... like let's say a Communist. (Just to use as an example) 

And when I think of Socialist, (in the democratic sense) I think of someone who believes in social democracy, including the checks and balances that come with democracy, including the rule of law and separation of powers. But someone who wants a national government big enough to make sure that no one ever has to go without the basic necessities of life. And using government to make sure that no individual becomes so powerful, that others have to suffer as a result. 

But even with the modern definition of "socialist" and "socialism", we still have have closeted Socialists in America, including Robert Reich, even when their ideological leaders and heroes, have already embraced the socialist label, NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, to go along with Bernie Sanders and the so-called Squad in the House, led by Alex Cortez and others. Even though "socialist" and "socialism", perhaps have never been more popular in America today, especially with young people. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.