Why does Bernie Sanders say he is a socialist?

As a full grown adult, Senator Sanders was a socialist. He still calls himself a socialist.

What does he mean by it?

One form of socialism killed more people than any form of government in human history. Fortunately, communism isn’t the only form of socialism and Sanders was never a communist. Still, my friends on the left rightly worry about any nationalist who gets close to fascist rhetoric. Sometimes the comparisons become unhinged. If you don’t believe me, take any recent Republican President or Presidential candidate and Google his or her name and the term “fascist.” When an American calls himself a “socialist,” Americans have a right to some concern for similar reasons. Socialism has been horrific or ineffective for most of human history. Worry is reasonable.

This is true even if he is a “nicer” socialist.

In most of the world (Africa, Asia, South America, Eastern Europe),  milder forms of socialism have produced poverty and tended to destroy democratic governments. As the government exerts more control over the economy, the rich move into government and poverty becomes a way of life. Those rare countries that have had the courage to adopt free markets and stick with them such as Singapore have prospered. Even communist states like China or the USSR under Lenin have allowed free markets to a limited extent to feed people and produce basic consumer goods.

If it were not for Western Europe, socialism would be an obvious and universal failure. In Western Europe, socialist parties have occasionally gained power, though they have generally been unable to implement their full program. They were able to nationalize some industries and (generally) provide larger government safety nets than exist in the United States. Despite this, no sizable nation has a better standard of living than the United States. Tiny nations such as Denmark, or oil rich Norway, have been able to support larger social systems, but they lack the diverse population or the military obligations of the United States.

Western Europe is declining in relative economic power, has a much lower standard of living than the United States for the average citizen, and faces demographic doom. I doubt a majority of Americans would want to take Western Europe as a model.

I am assured by many friends on the left that Sanders is just a very liberal Democrat and not “really” a socialist. He rejects government ownership of the “means of production,” though he could be merely in favor of “community” ownership. This old socialist dodge (now that state control has failed so spectacularly) means government is forcing owners to “give” their factories to workers. Sometimes this works, sometimes it does not. The end result is always an increase in state power.

There are few (if any) cases of “corporate” ownership on a large scale working without devolving into statist solutions. So why does Bernie Sanders call himself a socialist?

If he actually opposes state ownership, community ownership, and is just a liberal democratic, then why use a term that is freighted with trouble in the American electorate?

I think it is worrisome for three reasons:

It points to what he might wish he could do.

A pro-life candidate for governor of Texas knows he cannot do much about abortion in the state, but he has tipped off what he wishes he could do. Mr. Sanders refuses to lose the name . . . even he now says that he is a socialist. Why? Why not lose the term if it has no meaning? Doesn’t it tip us off to a disposition to look to government to solve problems first?

Why doubt that Senator Sanders would reach for state power faster than most Democrats? I do not. Even more worrisome is the fear that he is signaling the European socialist strategy: nationalize the popular stuff first (medicine, education) and then reach for the harder targets later. We only have his word that he has abandoned hard socialism. Why do we trust a politician from a movement that historically has advocated lying to advance the class struggle?

I do believe him, but his bitter clinging to a loaded term is worrisome.

It points to an ideological stubbornness that is unattractive.

Sanders was once a real socialist and he wasn’t young either. He was a serious socialist when he was my age! In Europe, democratic socialists have had to compromise their values to gain any power in the 21st century. Many are no longer socialists, but they cling to the name because it still has electoral resonance in parts of Europe. This is not Europe where there is a long, and sometimes noble socialist tradition.

Clinging to a meaningless term (if it is meaningless), points to an inability to admit that he was wrong, very wrong for decades of his adult life. If the policies advocated by Senator Sanders at the time had been adopted, the United States might not have won the Cold War. Shouldn’t he at least be a bit sorry?

It gives cover to state socialists.

Sanders calling himself a “socialist” while hollowing out the meaning allows true state socialists, with their horrid track record, to hide behind his skirts. Just as conservatives have a duty to repudiate any term that has racist overturns in the South, so Sanders has a duty to give no cover to American socialism of the strong sort. If he is afraid of offending socialist friends, then we cannot afford a President that concerned about the friendship of people who have adopted a disastrous economic policy.