Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Socialists Get Newfound Attention as 'Red-Baiting' Draws Interest From Youth
The socialist agenda that some conservatives see lurking around every corner, hidden in everything from health insurance reform to stimulus spending to President Obama's policies, exasperates Louisvillian Fred Hicks.
As the leader of a local socialist group, Hicks says the use of the "S-word" as a political smear is a gross mischaracterization that ignores the reality that socialism remains a lonely movement, with his 40-person group struggling to get more than a dozen people to attend a meeting.
And yet while the term's recent popularity irks Hicks, the retired professor says it's also beginning to have an unexpected result: It's bringing newfound interest and attention to his cause.
"Suddenly there are more people who want to know what it actually is," said Hicks, head of the Committee of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, whose members seek more government regulation of business, health care and wages.
Nationwide, the Democratic Socialists of America partly credits the term's usage with a 64 percent rise in memberships between 2008 and 2009. The party now has nearly 7,000 U.S. members, and the 1,000-member Socialist Party USA has seen new chapters pop up in Kansas and Oklahoma.
Marvin Williams, who heads the Central Indiana chapter of the DSA, said that at a November convention, he noticed an increase in younger attendees, some drawn by "red-baiting" tactics, the practice of accusing people of being communist or socialist because of their liberal views.
"In my age group, I've seen a dramatic rise in the number of people who understand and agree with socialism," even though "getting people to actively participate is tough," said Edward Elam, a 26-year-old computer trainer who started a Young Democratic Socialists chapter at Jefferson Community College in 2007 that has since disbanded.
Elam said socialism doesn't carry the same negative Cold War connotations it did 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, while interest has been further piqued by the recent banking crisis.
"This is a wonderful gift the Republicans are giving us," said Frank Llewellyn, the national director of the DSA. "We've had more attention in the last 12 months than in the last 12 years. But most people don't have a clue what socialism is."
Indeed, there's been no shortage of socialist name-calling, from John McCain's presidential campaign saying that Obama's policies resembled socialism, to the Republican National Committee's resolution calling on Democrats to "stop pushing our country toward socialism" to right-wing radio hosts equating the U.S. economic stimulus program to that of communist Russia.
Catherine Fosl, who directs the Anne Braden Institute for Social Justice Research at the University of Louisville - and who describes herself as a democratic socialist - said the term is still a "powerful epithet" because of nearly a century of anti-communist rhetoric in the United States.
"It's being used by the right to discredit very minor reforms that involve using government," Fosl said. "Obama's positions are less socialistic than FDR's Social Security plan."
Socialism in Kentucky has never gained much of a foothold, despite its history of having strong immigrant-backed branches in Northern Kentucky in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Socialist Party of Louisville in the early 1900s was known for political campaigns, lectures and pamphleteering. But it was crippled after its Jefferson Street headquarters was raided in 1920 by federal officials during a national crackdown on radicals.
No member was ever elected to a major office, and the movement further lost steam in the era of McCarthyism.
In 1954, Louisville activist Anne Braden, who had ties to leftist groups, was charged along with her husband with sedition after segregationists claimed communists seeking publicity had bombed a house she helped buy for a black family to protest Jim Crow housing practices.
It was never proved, and the charges against Anne Braden were eventually dropped.
The Cold War, President Ronald Reagan and the demise of communism in the Soviet Union led many activists to splinter into issue-specific social justice groups, said Fosl, who studies left-leaning political movements.
Bryan Reinholdt, a 29-year-old Louisville elementary school teacher, said it was the economic inequalities he noticed in the United States after serving in Iraq in 2005 with the Army that led him to read about, and join, the socialists.
"Socialism can be a dirty word, because it's never been done right. Some people just think of Stalin and totalitarian regimes," he said.
Out of 2.9 million registered Kentucky voters, only 36 were affiliated with the Socialist Workers party. Indiana does not track voter affiliations.
Today, Elam, Hicks and others say they're fielding more questions than ever before as the term re-enters America's political lexicon.
"The question you get is, what is socialism, or is Obama a socialist?" said Billy Wharton, co-chairman of the Socialist Party USA. "People like to say Obama's a socialist, but he isn't anything close."
There's no precise definition, but Wharton's group wants a $15 minimum hourly wage, 30-hour workweeks, guaranteed employment, single-payer health care, community ownership of corporations, more graduated taxation and state-owned banks.
Some socialists say they don't want to destroy markets or nationalize everything, but they want less-stagnant wages, more regulation, and taxes that fund everyone's health care, education, unemployment insurance and job training.
Fosl said she'd like to see higher minimum wages, guaranteed family-leave time and more government subsidies for housing and higher education. But many view socialism as a perspective, rather than a system they ever see being enacted.
"Here's the thing about socialism," Hicks said. "You can't march on city hall and demand socialism. You can demand single-payer health care, but socialism isn't on the table. And I don't see any point in voting for a third party that gets half a percent of the vote."
Still, he hopes the issues socialists view as important will now get more attention and begin to change people's views.
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that 53 percent of Americans thought capitalism was better than socialism; 20 percent preferred socialism; and 27 percent were uncertain.
"There's a mistrust of government in this country, so people don't want the government taking charge of health care, banking or even schools," Hicks said. "But hopefully with what's going on nationally, we can keep the idea of real socialism alive."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

78 Comments so far
Show AllA PR suggestion to those actual socialists gamely soldiering on: relentlessly hammer away at corporatism! The mega-corporations are a much scarier entity than the US government, which for all intents and purposes, is the lap dog of corporations.
The unwritten motto of a corporation I worked for in the 80s was "profit in confusion".
Corporate media has recharacterized terms like socialism and fascism to the point that they are at best confusing and at worse not recognizable when compared to the political environment of the turn of the 20th century.
This has resulted in the average American's 15 second attention span and demand for soundbites in leiu of solutions.
Generations of Americans have been brainwashed into believing that a "free market" actually exists.
Corporations will only function for the benefit of a majority of Americans if they are appropriately regulated. Obama and Congress still believe in self-regulating corporations.
While the desired result is restoring and enhancing New Deal regulated capitalism, where government is limited to doing what government does effectively, we will never get that far unless we demand socialism. When you are up against the US corporate propaganda machine you must demand a ton to end up with a pound.
This is all I have to offer but it should clear a lot of the waters from the negative, capitalistic pig programming over the decades:
http://dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
One problem with this article, as with the news media in general, is that socialism still was not defined even though we have many socialist programs in the US right now. If people do not know what something is, they are apt to fear it, ignore it, avoid it, and ultimately condemn it.
With all of the rhetoric since McCain's idiotic ranks of socialist takovers, you would think that mainsteam media, even Moyers, would delve into this subject a little. Also, there are dramatic differences with Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism, but since McCarthy, all are considered under the umbrella of communism, and all are given a bad name.
Are we still on a 'red scare' alert? France and other countries have national communist parties. What is up with the US anyway?
No one knows what Socialism is, or how it would work.
All we keep hearing is "power to the people", over and over again.
Marxism is a cute fiction, it assumes the dictator of the prolatarient wont take control and ruin everything. It assumes the state will happily fade away once its no longer needed.
It's not about asking a government to take care of your friends who might be down on there luck, its about YOU taking care of him. Stop with this talk of MEGA government taking care of us all, get up and build the society you want to see...
(And if you didn't get the point, i hate communism/socialism since it implies some great revolution will happen and money will rain down from the sky on all us broke people.
You've been brainwashed, Sweden is a socialist society right now that has a higher standard living than the U.S., more stable banking system, few homeless, and everyone with health care and access to University level education right now as we speak.
Of course you have to go out and do the research to find this out the U.S. MSM will never give you the fact on what democratic socialism actually is which is a mix of regulated private industries and public utilities, health, and education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
While I personally prefer a bottom up model of co-ops to the more top down centralist model of socialism I'd also say Europeon democractic socialism works better than the bankster crony capitalist controlled U.S.
Definitions of socialism are open and range from just regulation of business to public ownership of whatever is needed... all systems are mixed so it is a demonized word for "government takeover".
The problem is the people do not control the government.
The New Socialists understand that you can fight for better conditions but Socialism is not gonna be on the ballot.
Big Corporate Money controls the government, not the people.
Which reminds me that generally there are 2 kinds of people in America: Those who know they are Socialists and those that don't... those who don't get it for themselves and those who do, spend their time explaining what socialism is.
The Banksters don't know and that is why they get it.
" I do not see any point in voting for a third party that gets a half percent vote". Mr. Hicks: I do not see any point in voting for the most corrupted and the less corrupted that get almost all of the votes. What you are saying is: vote for the definition of insanity because they get almost all of the votes! Voting the same two corrupt parties into office over and over and over again and expecting a different result! What is the point in that?
When big money controls the government, both points seem suspect as a real answer.
When 3rd parties think uniting to win is something important, I will pay more attention to them.
It isn't any wonder that 53% of Americans think capitalism is better than socialism, considering the non-stop brainwashing we've been going through for over twenty years that has turned "liberalism" into a dirty word, and "socialism" into communism. I'd bet that over half of that 53% have never bothered to delve into what any of it means, and simply accept what's been programmed into their brains. Like the teabaggers who don't even understand that their precious Medicare, and probably Social Security too, are socialist programs; they're all cutting their own throats and don't even know it. I have several friends and relatives in that D,D,& B 53%.
A few months ago I was driving through Indiana and roads under construction had two signs on them, one above the other:
"Building Roads"
"Creating Jobs"
(or something like that - the wording might have been slightly different)
Anyway, I thought it would be great to add a third sign:
"Thank you Socialism",
but too many heads might explode.
It's good to have socialism in the media, but DSA and The Socialist Party are probably two of the most conservative socialist groups in the US. From a traditional Marxist perspective, neither of these organizations are even socialist, they want to reform capitalism, not change society from the ground up. These people want state capitalism, they equate socialism with more social programs from the corrupt capitalist state. These people are more Edward Bernstein than Karl Marx. You can't have socialism within a capitalist state, the two are incompatible. We need to make a distinction between social programs, and socialism, there is a big different. Single Payer Health Care is a social program (which I would support) hospitals run by nurses and workers is socialism. Federal funded schools is a social program, students democratically running schools is socialism. Socialism is really about the power of ordinary people, not a bunch of social programs, I think actual socialists need to be in the debate. And in reference to the article, there are actual socialist groups in the US with over 1000 members, why weren't they interviewed? Why interview the ones that are "safe."
"Safe" is your answer.
To elaborate a little, the power elite want to keep Socialism for themselves.
The Banksters are a "Community" and brag now of their Global connectivity.
They got all the cute icons talkin them up and if you didn't know better, you would think they were tryin to be like Jesus.
Out Fox that!
andrewalex9:
Excellent post! I especially like how you illustrate the difference between social programs and socialism. Also, why we should support social programs but not accept them as a substitute for socialism, that is, worker control of the economy.
Copy, paste, click, and learn: http://dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
WONDERFUL explanations!!! such clarity!
Socialism cannot come into its own until the US Constitution is changed. We must have proportional representation in a parliamentarian type of government instead of winner-take-all elections that limit political parties to two. The only countries that have socialist or communist parties represented, excepting those that are party dictatorships, are those with parliamentarian constitutions.
Yes, that would be ideal to get a vast majority to agree on constitutional changes for the winner take all system that is ingrained in custom and law in America.
I am glad that Dream is still alive.
ClassAct says: "We must have proportional representation in a parliamentarian type of government instead of winner-take-all elections[...]."
Odd, is it not, that practically all of the regimes the U.S. has "established" post-WWII, virtually all of them are parliamentarian with proportional representation? The U.S. modeled the Philippine government after its Constitution and look what went on in the recent Philippine elections.
One might think "what is good for the goose is good for the gander"...
But that realistic demon in me says if you want to change the constitution, shut up about "Socialism".
We need smart tactics to get near that door,
Substitute the word Justice for Socialism and let them red-bait that.
.
They will find a way. They already have. Might as well as just say to them, "Yes, everyone you think is one, is one. Now then?"
First, be brave.
Liberal, democrat, progressive, socialist, secular, agnostic, atheist, evil, demon, satan.
Conservative, stuck in millenia of wrong thinking, murderous, raping, thieving, cheating, lying, fanatical, arrogant, lacks self-control, destructive, immoral, uncompassionate, psychopathic, thinks he is God but does not know God
I wonder if it has begun yet, frightened people going underground by "converting" to Christianity, speaking in tongues, praying, fearing God, etc. as a way to survive.
I wonder of male homosexuals who fear being sodomized to death or having their sex organs ripped out are miraculously, publicly and permanently becoming hetero., holding hands with women in public (lesbians also gone underground), marrying such women, trying to masculanize their voices and body movements, finding God, etc.
Very creepy comment.
Joe
This is what happens when conservatives smoke Jimson Weed. Get a shrink dude.
What do you all think about the federal reserve and the willy nilly printing of worthless paper money and that every time they print more of that soon to be toilet paper substitution that it drives down the purchasing power of your money?
I liked one guys views here of the difference between socialism and social programs, but i think even the socialist supporters here think the government should have all these entitlement programs. and If socialism is about entitlement programs from a controlling State I say there is no freedom nor liberty there and say you can keep your socialism.
If socialism is the people. and it is voluntary, fine.
If socialism is BIG Central Banks and BIG Central government, keep it. I don't want Velvet Fascism.
The people need to be in control of their own lives, their own money, their own land, their own freedom. NOT some STATE - by state I mean Government, not ohio or florida.
Anarchy is the best form of "socialism" you can have. Each person is first and foremost responsible for their own governance, then by choice and voluntary actions communities can be built up.
No Federal government is needed, not in socialism or anarchism or whateverism we decide to label it. As long as the Individual is not oppressed, suppressed or forced to do anything against their own will.
peace. love. anarchy
"As long as the Individual is not oppressed, suppressed or forced to do anything against their own will."
and refrains from such action towards others - that's the hard part.
God forbid in this brave new world me and some friends decide to vote on issues like how to pay for street lights.
Or set up some type of fire department, and have a neighborhood watch to break up the occasional fight.
Anarchy is mob rule, has been and always will.
If that mob is a group of rapist , murders, or anything else, and they happen to be the most powerful group at that time they rule...
But please, keep your retarded image of a magical utopia where everything just works and people are just good, with no problems what so ever.
"If that mob is a group of rapist , murders, or anything else, and they happen to be the most powerful group at that time they rule..."
what do we have now?
C-Street
Anarchy does not rule out voluntary organization; only coercion, unjust imposition of will.
The anarchist, to preserve his/her freedom of choice, guarantees the same to others.
I agree.
Sadly many people are not able to maintain self-control. Capitalism is not real capitalism anymore. It is simply monopoly now; just a few control the many, bullyism.
"The people need to be in control of their own lives, their own money, their own land, their own freedom. NOT some STATE ..."
Your vision of extreme individualism favors the strong, the male, the childless. What about people who have no money and no land? Anarchy can be a liberating attitude in the abstract, but often it is cold and uncaring in the execution.
I agree that our current state is a criminal enterprise in many ways. But there are also good things like traffic lights and public hospitals that require organization and yes, a certain amount of coercion. Would you like to drive where there is nobody enforcing the laws? Should children be free to work in a factory rather than attend school?
Joe
capitalism promises equality of opportunity.
socialism provides equality of existence.
Well said!
Capitalism serves the greed of society,
Socialism serves the needs of society.
Anyone who believes there is equal opportunity, in America, is living in a different America than me.
I agree. There has never been equality of opportunity here. Too many marginalized groups for one - Native Americans, slaves, women. And the dirty word - class. Poor, exhausted, overworked, underpaid people have the opportunity to try to stay alive day by day. And that's when they are lucky enough to have a job.
Joe
And if they lose that job they are increasingly unlikely to find another one. Often if they do find another job it doesn't pay but a fraction of the job lost.
Socialism NOW! Before it is too late.
Gary
“I believe that for the past twenty years there has been a creeping socialism spreading in the United States”
-- Dwight David Eisenhower
jClientelle...
i know EXACTLY what you are refering to, i work with them..and i see how they LITERALLY get crushed , and after years of toil, their bodies, LITERALLY, are broken..
all the while working under constant threat of being fired - and of course be "responsible" for more and more and more and more work under undervalued wages..LITERALLY wages that have remained in the level of the 1970's..LITERALLY.
I never said it delivered, only promised.
Yes, this is a crucial distinction! And, without striving for equality of existence there is not a prayer of even achieving equality of opportunity.
This is an argument about ill-defined labels and imaginary evils. Most discussion in the U.S. about "socialism" is very simple-minded and filled with boogeyman notions. You won't find this elsewhere on the globe, and, once you "step out" of the ethnocentric Americana box.
People deserve non-discriminating, non-tiered health care, education, food, and housing. A decent quality of life.
Unfettered capitalism does not serve these ends. It's a no-brainer.
Most sane economies are a mixture of well regulated "free" markets and strong social safety nets.
"Socialism can be a dirty word, because it's never been done right."
And capitalism has?
Neither has worked well because they both rely on representatives that are easily corrupted.
What system has no politician-dictators? Direct grassroots democracy:
http://www.ni4d.us/fossedal
The "O" is NO socialist. Just a continuation of Socialist payments into the accounts of the privatists profits.
What's funny to me is that we already HAVE socialism. And I mean, right here in River City.
Why, we've got socialized schools, socialized parks, socialized libraries, socialized roads, socialized law enforcement, socialized public transit, and socialized firemen. We even have (some) socialized medicine in the excellent Veterans Administration hospitals.
Too bad we don't have a vibrant socialist party as they do in virtually every other democracy in the world. They wouldn't advocate for wimpy single payer (where the doctors and hospitals remain private), they'd advocate for true socialized medicine. You know, like they have in Great Britain.
These schools, parks etc. are remnants of struggles and progressivism from another era. It was an era in which even some of the upper class saw a benefit in a healthy and educated population.
The progressive movements and labor in the US never got around to instituting national health. There was recently an interesting article in The New Yorker by Atul Gawande detailing how various European countries got national health starting in the 1930s.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande
It is complicated, but one driving factor was the urgent problem of dealing with civilian casualties in WW II. We were spared that, as was Switzerland, and most of our health care in both countries is still privately funded.
After WW II progressivism in the US was squashed by a combination of McCarthyism and desire by GIs to leave behind the nightmare images of war and to water the lawn and have kids and a dog.
Now just when we are getting around to healthcare, we are in an era in which everything is seen as an opportunity for privatization, for looting. Real estate interests try to take over the parks. Libraries are on the chopping block. It is a struggle just to keep the status quo. Every time parents protest against school closing, cuts and privatization, they are in essence supporting socialist features of our society. But we have no strong socialist or progressive movement, and we really need one.
Broken record time: The most expensive socialized program is weaponry and war. If that were converted to peaceful enterprises, we could finance healthcare and cut class sizes etc. Just saying.
Joe
Actually, the US spends more than any other country in the world on health care. Many studies have shown that single payer would CUT costs. We'd be paying LESS. And, of course, that's the wimpy Canadian solution. Go to the United Kingdom and they pay even less per capita. (See https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1310.pdf -- the US Statistical Abstract)
I agree about military spending. A socialist party would undoubtedly offer a choice of butter over guns not provided by either war-mongering party.
Right now the Republicrats give us a choice: Do we want to be stabbed in the chest, or in the back? God forbid we vote for a 3rd party candidate.