Monday, August 20, 2018
“Democratic” sophistry
Putting the word “Democratic” in front the word “socialism” is like placing a row of flower pots in front of a barbed wire fence.
It should be a surprise to no one that Democrats are more and more acknowledging their nascent affiliation with socialism. They are America’s de facto socialist party. They’re still in the position of having to actually convince people of the worthiness of their philosophy so, for now, it has become necessary to tack on the “democratic” qualifier.
The word “democratic” possesses some subtle and perhaps confusing meanings. I would maintain that there are actually three common meanings to the word. It’s used most often in a very general and generic sense to denote a state of freedom. There are dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and “democracies.” It’s fine to use the word this way if all parties are on the same page with this definition. The more specific meaning is what the word actually means from its original Greek, “rule by the people.” Of course, this second meaning, that a society be ruled by everyone, reflects an impossibility given that contending interests exist within any group. “Rule by the people” usually defaults to the concept of majority rule. majority rule is often best described by it’s definition as “two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner” or the less symbolic, “fifty-one percent of citizens deciding to kill the other 49 percent.”
The third meaning is how “democracy” actually plays out the concept of a “general will,” directing the course of events through a powerful state that mysteriously interprets all citizen’s common interests. So it is that so many ruthless dictatorships are fully comfortable in using the word in the belief that they act as a positive good for all.
In the public schools and academia it has become popular to describe America as a “participatory democracy” thus sneaking in that last definition to replace America’s constitutional republic (very different from a “participatory democracy”).
With Bernie Sanders candidacy and a few newer “democratic socialists” gaining the spotlight, the phrase has sought to put a kinder and gentler face on what always has been mere statism— centralized rule by a group, individual, or bureaucracy. We are supposed to now think that those ideologues who idolize Marx and Trotsky are really just trying to offer a few extra social services in the image of Sweden or Denmark. Scandinavian welfare states and massive social expenditure certainly share a leftist affinity but I have yet to meet anyone praising socialism who ultimately does not wish to see capitalism and private property eliminated and opposition to a “revolutionary” objective censored and crushed.
Democratic can mean “free,” “majority rule.” or rule “by the peoples’ “general will.” In the end, semantics mean nothing when a specific personality and vision continues to cloud the pages of history with predictable rage and desire to control.
Contemporary politicos can tack the word “democratic” on to their identity all they want. In the end, they’re socialists. Putting them in power will not mean living in Denmark. It will mean living n Venezuela. Good luck with that.
