Historical Cycling and Recycling.
Back to the Future in the Age of Trump.
Social Democracy v. Social Darwinism.
The Golden Rule v. The Rule of Gold.
A Fascist Resurgence? A Socialist Revival?
Burton Weltman
“The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.”
William Faulkner.
Gilded Age Redux: Déjà vu all over again. The Golden Rule v. the Rule of Gold.
I am writing this missive in early February, 2025. We are currently rushing past the first quarter of the twenty-first century while significant efforts are being made to hurl us back to the last quarter of the nineteenth century by right-wing reactionaries who want to Make America Great Again (MAGA) by destroying all of the progress that was made during the twentieth century.
The late nineteenth century was a Gilded Age of plutocracy and political cronyism, blatant demagoguery and government corruption, rampant racial bigotry and religious prejudice, widespread poverty and homelessness, plagues of virulent diseases, and a host of other societal ills. Many of these ills have been ameliorated by progressive reforms during the twentieth century. Social Security. Medicaid. Medicare. Civil Rights Laws. Civil Liberties Rulings. The list goes on. The fabric of American society has become more humane thereby.
The repeal of these reforms and a return to the state of things that prevailed during the Gilded Age seems to be the goals of self-styled MAGA populists who have very little in common with the original populists of the late nineteenth century. The original populists were reformers who promoted the progressive social changes that the MAGA movement is against. MAGA supporters seem to think that America was greatest when it was most nasty, corrupt, and brutish. It is a fascistic, might-makes-right conception of greatness. Currently led and misled by Donald Trump, MAGA has momentum and we are in the midst of a MAGA moment in history.
It is a difficult moment for progressives. We are experiencing a historical cycling and recycling that we could do without, the return of an atavism that we thought was being overcome and gradually done away with. It is discouraging but it does not have to be disheartening. There may be a silver lining or sliver of hope in the fact that the Gilded Age was followed by the Progressive Era and then the New Deal, which initiated most of the liberal social changes that the MAGA mob hate.
The evils of the Gilded Age provoked a historic social reform movement which was, in turn, largely inspired by socialist ideas. Socialism was a mainstream ideology during the Progressive and New Deal eras of the first half of the twentieth century, competing with liberal and conservative ideologies in the political arena. While socialists hoped to gradually replace the capitalist system, liberals adopted many socialist ideas in the hope of reinforcing the existing system. Working in cooperation with liberals, socialists and the Socialist Party of the early twentieth century were the source of many of the progressive reforms that eventuated during the century. Almost all of the Socialist Party platform for the 1912 election was, for example, subsequently enacted into law.
Channeling socialist ideals, liberal and socialist progressives adopted a mantra of “The Golden Rule instead of the Rule of Gold.” Likewise, the socialist ideal of working cooperatively with others, instead of the capitalist idea of working competitively against them, was a main progressive idea. Socialist ideas permeated the progressive reform movements. Socialists also held many important positions in local and state governments and the federal government during the first half of the twentieth century. That changed after World War II. Socialism became a taboo word during the Cold War when conservatives successfully equated democratic socialism with totalitarian Communism in the media and the public mind.
But that, too, seems now to be changing. Despite the present-day reign of Donald Trump and his minions, or maybe because of it, the idea and ideals of socialism have been revived in recent years. This revival has included the emergence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), an organization that largely functions as a left-wing of the Democratic Party, and the election of DSA members and other social democrats to Congress and to local government offices.
Since socialism seems to be back on the political agenda, it may be useful to try to define and discuss what socialism actually is. And that is the purpose of this essay.
Democratic Socialism Redux: It’s back on the agenda. Individuality v. Individualism.
The word socialism was first used as a political term around 1830. From its inception, the term has denoted more of a moral message than a political or economic system. Socialism is an ideology which holds that “the self-development of each is the basis for the self-development of all” (Karl Marx), that one should act according to the maxim of “all for one, and one for all” (The Three Musketeers), and that one should “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Jesus Christ). It is an ideology that promotes individuality through mutualism and cooperation.
Socialism is a pro-social philosophy. When you add “ism” to a word, you identify an ideology or a cause that promotes what the word represents. Socialism asserts that individual freedom is a result of social interaction. Individuality means freely cultivating your talents within a social context, and finding a place in which you can make your unique contribution to society. Individuality is not merely freedom from the oppression of others, but also freedom to participate equally with others. It is the idea that my freedom depends on yours, and we are nothing without each other. That’s the ideal of socialism.
Socialism arose in opposition to capitalism and individualism. Capitalism can be defined as an economic system that is based on the presumption that businesses will be privately owned and operated without government interference, unless that presumption is overcome by conclusive evidence that government involvement is necessary to preserve the capitalist system. In a capitalist system, the goal of businesses is to make profits, based on the assumption that maximizing profits will result in maximum benefits to the public. Capitalism as an economic system is supported by individualism as a social theory.
Individualism is an ideology that promotes a cult of the individual, and that describes the individual as in constant opposition to society. Individualism asserts “me” and “mine” over “we” and “ours.” It promotes the individual over society, for fear that society will suppress the individual. And it promotes competition among people rather than cooperation. This premise is based on two key premises. First, the idea that competition makes people stronger and more productive. And second, that competition keeps people isolated from each other so that they cannot form social coalitions that might suppress individuals. Society is to be mistrusted.
Individualism is, therefore, an ideology of liberation, but also of insecurity. It encourages people to be themselves, free from the constraints of others, and be all that they can individually be. But it bases that self-fulfillment on competing for supremacy against others. In an individualist world, people can never be sure whether their positions are strong enough to withstand the whims of lady luck or the winds of change.
A down-side of individualism is that it can function as an ideological rationalization for the selfish and self-centered bully, who climbs over others in a vain attempt to be king of the hill, vain because there is inevitably someone stronger or smarter coming up that hill. Individualism reinforces the free enterprise capitalist economic system that has predominated in the United States since the early nineteenth century. Individualism gradually became the dominant ideology in the country during the nineteenth century and, despite inroads from socialist ideas, has largely reigned as such since.
Unlike individualism, socialism asserts the compatibility and indivisibility of the individual and society. Socialism claims that individuals and individuality stem from interacting with other people and with society. For socialists, “One for all and all for one” is a fact, not merely an aspiration. You are nothing without others, and you are what you do with others.
Likewise, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is, for socialists, a fact and not merely an aspiration. If you think well of yourself, you will likely treat others well. If you treat others poorly, competing to defeat and dominate them, you will likely think poorly of yourself. Socialism opposes individualism, but not individuality, as self-defeating. Individualism comes from working against others, ultimately a losing proposition, individuality from working with them.
Individualism promotes the Social Darwinian zero-sum idea that if you get more, I will get less, and that the only way for me to get and keep mine is to keep you from getting yours. It is an ideology that promotes distrust and fear of others.
Although few right-wingers today acknowledge Social Darwinism as a source of their ideology, Social Darwinism is the principle that underscores most of the thinking of Donald Trump and the political right-wing in the United States today. Unlike conservatives who oppose dramatic social change and big government, but are generally willing to accept small reforms and government programs when necessary to avoid disaster, right-wingers are radicals who want to dramatically change society and virtually eliminate government and the public sector. It is a view that hinges on mobocracy instead of democracy.
Unlike right wing ideology, socialism is not a radical idea. By definition, radicals want to get to the roots of what they see as a wicked society, tear up those roots, and plant something entirely new. Socialism does not reject the foundations of American society. The idea of socialism builds on the social ideals that most Americans already hold, and on social instincts that most Americans already display. Socialists do not have to start from scratch. They can build on the democratic institutions and ideas that already exist in capitalist America, and thereby move gradually toward a socialist political, economic and social system.
A socialist political democracy could be described as a system of majority rule with minority rights, the most important of which is the right of the minority to possibly become the majority someday. That last clause is the most important in the definition. Implicit in the definition are freedoms of speech, assembly, and political organization; the rule of law along with due process and equal protection under the law; and all of the other political rights guaranteed by the Constitution. But the definition also requires social equality and economic equity so that individuals and minority groups can effectively exercise their political rights. That is where the socialism comes in. Political democracy is effective only to the extent that social equality and economic equity prevail.
In economics, the idea of socialism is economic democracy. The economic goal of most socialists could be summarized as a system based on the presumption of public ownership or control of businesses, unless it is in the public interest for businesses to be privately owned and/or controlled, and with an assumption that small businesses would be privately owned and operated. A mixed economy of public and private business is the idea of socialism, with government involvement to ensure economic equity.
Implicit in that definition are such things as a public health system along with health and safety regulations, a public insurance system along with a social safety net, minimum and maximum wage regulations along with a progressive income tax, and other provisions to make for a cooperative, stable, and relatively egalitarian economy. Socialism promotes the public interest in economics, and opposes a capitalism in which everyone and everything is valued in monetary rather than human terms. It builds on American ideals of fairness and practices of generosity.
In social relations, the idea of socialism is social democracy. Socialism promotes the dignity of all people, and opposes discrimination against people based on invidious prejudices. A socialist conception of personal relations could be summarized as support for everyone who respects others, and opposition to anyone to the extent the person disrespects others. Implicit in that idea is opposition to racism, misogyny, ethnocentrism, homophobia, and bigotry in all its forms, and support for diversity coupled with cooperation. That is the American ideal of E pluribus unum.
Back to the Future: Democratic Socialism v. Social Darwinism. The choice is ours to make.
The idea of socialism held by most socialists is very different than that held by opponents of socialism. As part of their political liturgy, conservatives and right-wingers have tried to make socialism a dirty word, and to represent socialism as the enemy of individuality and freedom. The idea of socialism is often mischaracterized by opponents, and even by some self-styled socialists, mostly those who identify as Communists, as promoting government ownership or control over all businesses and, maybe, even over everything else. The idea of socialism is also misidentified with oppressive Communist regimes that have existed in some countries. But, neither of these is consistent with the idea of socialism nor what most socialists believe.
This misconception is based on a claim that socialists worship society over-and-above the individual, and to which the individual can be sacrificed. This is a core idea of totalitarianism. It is anathema to individualists and is the basis of their seeing society as the enemy of the individual. But reifying and idolizing society is also contrary to the idea of socialism. Most socialists see society as an association of individuals which can and should be a vehicle for individuality, and oppose the totalitarianism implied in seeing society as a hegemonic entity.
Socialists are often portrayed as violent revolutionaries, but the overwhelming majority of socialists from the early nineteenth century to the present day have favored peaceful evolution toward socialism. Socialists have generally tried to establish islands of socialism within the existing capitalist society that would island-by-island gradually move society toward the socialist goal.
They have, for example, established communes, like those of the nineteenth century utopian socialists and the twentieth century hippies, some of which have been successful. Socialists have also encouraged the establishment of cooperatives, which have been more successful. Farming co-ops, housing co-ops, shopping co-ops, and co-ops of all sorts have flourished over the last one hundred years. The hope is that the cooperative idea will catch on with ever more people, so that communes and co-ops will gradually become the norm.
At the same time, socialists have developed ideas for social reforms and social programs that have been adopted over the years. Most of the social programs proposed in the 1912 platform of the Socialist Party have, in fact, become law in the United States. The hope is that by adopting regulations that promote the health and safety of the public, promote economic equity and efficiency, protect the environment, and care for those who need help, the country will gradually become more socialized.
Most people would describe these reforms positively in humanistic terms, and see them as a means of stabilizing the existing capitalist society. Right-wingers, however, decry them as “creeping socialism.” Socialists hope they are right.
BW 2/25
Brief Bibliography.
Eric Foner. “Why is there no socialism in the United States?” In Who Owns History? New York: Hill and Wang, 2002. Pp. 110-145.
Micheal Harrington. Socialism. Past & Future. New York: Arcade Publishing. 1989.
George Lichtheim. The Origins of Socialism. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. 1969.
historyaschoice 