No, democracy doesn’t lead to socialism
Kevin Drum has a post up at jabberwocking.com about a claim by the chair of the Alabama GOP that democracies lead to socialism. I can’t think of a single example of a socialist country that evolved from democracy to socialism. Russia became socialist when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Kerensky government by violent revolution. Socialism throughout the USSR was imported on the backs of tanks. Socialism in the post-WWII Eastern block replaced Nazi puppets with Soviet puppets—it didn’t evolve from democracies. And since then? Here’s Kevin:
“What’s interesting is that it really ought to be true. There are way more low-income voters than rich people, so it should be easy and common for them to band together and soak the rich as a way of providing themselves with more bennies.
“And to some extent this does happen, more in some countries than others. But what’s remarkable is how little it happens. Every adult gets to vote in America, but it’s hard to convince low and middle income voters to unite for something as simple and useful as universal health care, let alone free universities or childcare for all. As for really soaking the rich, forget it. Nobody in the world is serious about it. Hyper egalitarian Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US. The current richest person on earth, with a net worth of $200 billion, hails from social democratic France. In Switzerland, being rich is practically the national religion.
“The inability to turn democracy into socialism is a longtime puzzle. When World War I started, socialist leaders were shocked to find that class solidarity vanished instantly to be replaced with patriotic nationalism. It was, in a way, the original version of What’s the Matter with Kansas? Why did the proles all join up to fight a war for wealthy interests? Why do so many low-income Americans vote for a party that’s so clearly an arm of the rich? In both cases, it was because class interests are surprisingly fragile compared to culture, religion, country, family, and race.”
Ronald Wright solved the puzzle long ago: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Democracy doesn’t lead to socialism
“What’s interesting is that it really ought to be true. There are way more low-income voters than rich people, so it should be easy and common for them to band together and soak the rich as a way of providing themselves with more bennies.
“And to some extent this does happen, more in some countries than others. But what’s remarkable is how little it happens. Every adult gets to vote in America, but it’s hard to convince low and middle income voters to unite for something as simple and useful as universal health care, let alone free universities or childcare for all. As for really soaking the rich, forget it. Nobody in the world is serious about it. Hyper egalitarian Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US. The current richest person on earth, with a net worth of $200 billion, hails from social democratic France. In Switzerland, being rich is practically the national religion.
“The inability to turn democracy into socialism is a longtime puzzle. When World War I started, socialist leaders were shocked to find that class solidarity vanished instantly to be replaced with patriotic nationalism. It was, in a way, the original version of What’s the Matter with Kansas? Why did the proles all join up to fight a war for wealthy interests? Why do so many low-income Americans vote for a party that’s so clearly an arm of the rich? In both cases, it was because class interests are surprisingly fragile compared to culture, religion, country, family, and race.”
Ronald Wright solved the puzzle long ago: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Democracy doesn’t lead to socialism
I can understand loyalty to culture, religion, country, family, and race…but political party? Heck, most people never get anything from their political party besides fundraising letters. And most of what the political parties stand for is pure hogwash, pigs ears dressed up as market-tested silk purses.
As we can see from the Biden fiasco, party leaders are loyal mostly to their big donors, who can attempt a last minute coup if their chosen one is perceived to be weak and unable to deliver for them.
John H
I am loyal to his accomplishments and what he achieved over the last 4 years. No Democrat or Republican has achieved similar going all the way back to the Clintons and probably further. My loyalty is to his future accomplishments in his next term. Obama was ready to cut Social Security to attain a budget. Clinton allowing the start of the weakening of Glass-Steagall which was a lead in to the collapse of Wall Street to which Main Street paid the price.
And all of the others, what do they have to show for accomplishments? Trump is responsible for a $2 trillion + deficit. The Bushs left similar economic issues.
And you are worried about Biden? A man who has many watchers to guide him and a Congress who must pass anything he proposes?
Financial Deregulation and the beginning of the demise of Glass Stegall
“US Sen. Susan Collins says she will once again not vote for Donald Trump in 2024”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-sen-susan-collins-vote-donald-trump-2024-111896954
Let’s hope that more Americans take Collins’ lead–don’t stay home–vote third party, or write in your wife’s name. Loyally voting for the lesser of two evils only begets more evil.
With enough “neither, nor” votes, the two party duopoly will get delegitimized, start representing their constituents, or be replaced.
Loyally staying home, voting third party, or writing in your spouse’s name guarantees more evil.
@Jack,
Not if they’re GOP voters. It would prevent more evil.
That wasn’t who he was aiming at and, unfortunately, the pitch seems to appeal to progressives and young voters.
@JackD,
LOL! You think the head of the Alabama GOP is trying to appeal to progressives with that silly message? Seriously? Man, he’s even dumber than I thought.
@Joel,
The “he” I was referring to was JohnH, not the head of the Alabama GOP. Historically, the stay at homes have tended to be the young voters and they have not tended to be right wing Republicans.
@John,
I’m certainly happy to see Republicans stay home or vote 3rd party. As for duopoly being replaced, that’s just fantasy. In our winner-take-all system, more than two parties is unstable. If you want more than two party duopoly, you have to have a parliamentary system, which would require re-writing the US Constitution. Na ga happen.
Joel—where do you get the notion that more than three parties is unstable in a presidential system? Just look at Mexico. People finally got fed up with the corruption of PRI and PAN and elected Morena and AMLO.
And guess what happened? AMLO doubled the minimum wage with 20% more to come in 2024. This is much needed in the US, but any increase is inconceivable because the wealthy donor funded duopoly won’t even consider it. Worse, the increase in wages by low income workers is being countered by an influx of immigrants. The duopoly may posture as much as it wants about immigration, but nothing gets done, because cheap, illegal labor benefits a lot of American businesses who fund the corrupt, senescent duopoly.
It’s time for a third political party, like Morena, that represents voters, not donors. If Mexico can do it, why can’t the US? I’d say that a big part of the reason is that voters have been conditioned by the public relations efforts of the donor class and its media to see no option but the lesser of two evils.
@JohnH,
“Unstable” doesn’t mean can’t happen. It means that it’s not sustainable. For how many decades has Mexico had three parties that have vied successfully in elections. My count is zero. Just because you can find one recent example doesn’t falsify the observation that in a winner-take-all system, more than two parties is unstable.
“If Mexico can do it, why can’t the US?”
There isn’t enough space here to enumerate all the differences between Mexico and the US. I recommend you read histories of the US and Mexico. Also, you could learn about the economy of Mexico compared to the US.
@JohnH,
A few seconds on Google found this:
“How the U.S. Election System Favors the Two-Party Model
“To understand why the two-party system is so firmly entrenched in the United States, it’s important to understand how the nation’s elections work. The U.S. system of representation is based on who wins the most votes in each district, not necessarily a majority of votes cast. In addition, each distinct area—whether congressional district, state or, in the case of the presidency, the nation as a whole—is represented by a single member, rather than proportional representation based on the number of votes received.
“The tendency for such a winner-takes-all, single-member district system to promote a two-party organization is sometimes explained by a concept known as “Duverger’s law,” named after the French political scientist Maurice Duverger.
“A lot of comparative political scientists will say it’s not actually a hard and fast law, but it’s a good rule of thumb [that] single member districts and plurality elections tend to produce stable two-party systems and make it very difficult for third parties to emerge,” Rosenfeld explains. “The reason being: People are strategic in their voting. Faced with multiple candidates in a system in which all you need is the most votes to win, people worry if they vote for their favorite candidate that’s just going to serve as a spoiler, and might perversely lead to the election of their least-favorite candidate.”
https://www.history.com/news/two-party-system-american-politics
Joel–so you favor stability, not democracy. I would point out that the fewer competitors there are in oligopolistic markets, the greater the stability. Monopoly is even more stable. That doesn’t make it better.
IMO any electoral system that fosters a “lesser of two evils” choice is inherently anti-democratic…as is Biden’s decision to deny secret service protection to RFK.
@JohnH,
Please point out where I ever said I favor stability, not democracy. Take all the time you need.
What I actually posted is that more than two parties is unstable in a winner-take-all system like ours. I didn’t say I favor it, I stated it as a fact. I also posted a link to history.com supporting my observation.
Instead of making up fictions about me, how about sticking to facts and evidence, m’kay?