As I was reading this morning, I came across a transcripted interview. It brought to my mind all manner of thoughts about what Democratic Socialism is as many progressives nowadays think of it. I've made clear in the past that I am a Democratic Socialist/a Social Democrat at heart. While I did not intend to do more than just clarify my thoughts early on in the transcript, an afterthought was 'this would make a good article. I should send it to you.'
These are some excerpts with my commentary from a CBC interview with Bhaskar Sunkara on their radio show, Front Burner. Transcripts can be read at https://www.cbc.ca/radio/
Sunkara is the president of The Nation magazine. He founded and is the and editorial director of Jacobin. He was the former vice-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. He wrote the book The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequality.
Here's some important parts with some of my early thoughts/commentary bracketed thusly: {italics}.
"[N]ot all socialists are democratic socialists. When I look at the experiences of the 20th century in states like the Soviet Union, it becomes very easy to make a no true Scotsman argument, because I truly don't consider those states socialists, because I think democracy is such an integral part of what socialism means. But given that experience, I think it's important to clarify and have the democratic in front, and to say that our version of socialism, our vision of socialism, incorporates key insights from liberal traditions as well. And by that, I mean the necessity of having rights. There should be limits in the scope of the state. There should be certain things that an individual has free domain over. And no matter how democratic the state, you know, there should be limits. All these ... are important and distinguish democratic socialism from more authoritarian forms of socialism, if you will.
"Even today, you have many who will use the label of socialism or communism to fearmonger, and they will put those labels on democratic socialists. {"We're fighting communism on our own shores" is a common refrain by Republicans, whereas 'progressives' in the Democratic party today are mostly democratic socialists opposed by dominant Clinton neoliberals who try to keep them out. I consider Elizabeth Warren a liberal progressive who sides with 'progressives' in that party while eschewing the Democratic Socialist label. Nevertheless, her liberalism fits Sunkara's and my framing as virtually identical to Democratic Socialism.}
"Socialism was always squeezed to the margins, in part because the U.S. has a very, very unusual political system, um, that makes ballot access extremely restrictive. So we don't-- not only do we have a first-past-the-post system like in Canada or England, it's almost impossible to even maintain a third-party ballot line. So as a result, generations of socialists have been within the Democratic Party tent and a major part of the New Deal coalition."
{The New Deal was inspired by FDR's realization that capitalism could not survive the way it was. In that sense, he was simultaneously trying to undermine some of the "Authoritarian Socialists" of his day (whom Sunkara has distinguished from Democratic Socialists) by bringing in the New Deal. FDR's liberalism was essentially Democratic Socialism and most resembles the liberalism of Elizabeth Warren. Note that FDR most relied upon Frances Perkin in his cabinet. Her central view was, in her words, "The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to give all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life." FDR also relied on advisors like Harry Hopkins and Raymond Moley to help draft and implement these measures.
She also said, ""I came to Washington to work for God, FDR, and the millions of forgotten, plain common workingmen." She was an heartfelt Christian, first.
She put G*d first in her loyalties. She brings to mind Christian Socialism of Martin Luther King, Jr. who said, "This country has socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor". Bernie Sanders has favorably quoted this.
Both quotes --Perkins' and MLK, Jr.'s-- imply that Christian Socialism is Democratic Socialism without the trappings of religion per se. Sanders, like Warren, eschews the labels Democratic Socialist or Christian Socialist (He is Jewish and proud of it!) To me, he is a Democratic Socialist nonetheless.}
"It's only really been in the last couple of decades, really the last decade and a half that American socialism has made a more full-throated resurgence."
Note:I iterate that all Italicised commentary in {} represent my thoughts as I was reading the transcript. Mr. Sunkara might, in fact, disagree with some of my thinking. (I really don't know.) I strongly recommend reading the entire transcript.
Front Burner Transcript for July 16, 2026
Host: Jayme Poisson
JAYME POISSON: Hey everybody, I'm Jayme Poisson.
[Music: Theme]
JP: Recently in the U.S., we've seen this wave of self-described democratic socialists running for and winning elected office. There is, of course, the improbable case of Zohran Mamdani who won the New York mayoral campaign, but also recent high-profile races across the U.S., where establishment incumbents are being unseated by much younger insurgents, from Denver to New York to Washington, D.C. Even here in Canada, the new leader of the NDP, Avi Lewis, is a longtime self-described democratic socialist. According to a new Gallup poll, socialism is officially viewed more favourably among democratic voters than capitalism, and the most positively regarded politicians of the country are self-identified democratic socialists. It's a big shift from where we were not too long ago. So today, we'll look at the principles and ideas which make up democratic socialism and discuss its century-long legacy in this part of the world and the pushback against it. Bhaskar Sunkara is the president of The Nation magazine, founder and editorial director of Jacobin, the former vice-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and the author of books such as The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequality.
JP: Bhaskar, thank you so much for coming on to Front Burner. It's such a pleasure to have you.
BHASKAR SUNKARA: Thanks for having me.
JP: So let's start maybe by defining democratic socialism, which has seen this huge rise in popularity. What exactly is it and how is it different from socialism?
BHASKAR SUNKARA: Well, democratic socialism aims to bring about a more egalitarian world. So at a minimum, that means that making sure that all people, by virtue of just being born, have the access to the necessities of a good life. So housing, health care, nutrition, education, and we can achieve this through many different means. The most common ways that democratic socialists not only advocated for but actually enacted have been through the expansion of social welfare programs, including within capitalism. So of course, the Canadian health-care system was pioneered in part by the work of people like Tommy Douglas. You know, a Christian socialist, but it came out of, out of a similar sort of democratic socialist tradition. So not all socialists are democratic socialists. When I look at the experiences of the 20th century in states like the Soviet Union, it becomes very easy to make a no true Scotsman argument, because I truly don't consider those states socialists, because I think democracy is such an integral part of what socialism means. But given that experience, I think it's important to clarify and have the democratic in front, and to say that our version of socialism, our vision of socialism, incorporates key insights from liberal traditions as well. And by that, I mean the necessity of having rights. There should be limits in the scope of the state. There should be certain things that an individual has free domain over. And no matter how democratic the state, you know, there should be limits. All these other sorts of, um, of insights, I think, are important and distinguish democratic socialism from more authoritarian forms of socialism, if you will.
JP: For most of our political lives outside of the few years in which Bernie Sanders was kind of this insurgent force outside and then inside the Democratic Party:
SOUNDCLIP
BERNIE SANDERS: What democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one tenth of 1% in this country own almost 90%. Almost-- Own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%.
JP: Socialism and democratic socialism have been pretty radioactive ideas in mainstream American political life. You, of course, have the Red Scare in which the federal government oversaw a kind of hunt targeting communists and socialists. Even today, you have many who will use the label of socialism or communism to fearmonger, and they will put those labels on democratic socialists.
SOUNDCLIP
DONALD TRUMP: Communism is a loser, and it always will be. The communist system is the opposite of the American system, and the communist system has never worked. Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world, only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America. We're not gonna let it happen.
SOUNDCLIP
MIKE JOHNSON: You heard the president talk about how he wants to effectively double the funding for national defence. Look, we live in dangerous times. We're fighting communism on our own shores, and we're fighting...
JP: How would you describe the U.S. historical relationship with democratic socialism?
BHASKAR SUNKARA: So, the U.S. actually has a long history of socialist, um, currents. A little bit over 100 years ago, we had a socialist candidate running on an independent ballot line who got over a million votes. Democratic socialism, or the Socialist Party of America, was polling in the double digits in even states like Oklahoma. It was a strong force in the unsettled region of U.S. capitalism in the American West, particularly. And also a major mass force in certain other enclaves, like in Milwaukee, where there was socialist governance for decades and decades. And even in parts of New York City, where garment workers on the Lower East Side, in the Bronx, particularly among Jewish workers, socialism is kind of a mass phenomenon. Obviously, there is that, that history. Socialism was always squeezed to the margins, in part because the U.S. has a very, very unusual political system, um, that makes ballot access extremely restrictive. So we don't-- not only do we have a first-past-the-post system like in Canada or England, it's almost impossible to even maintain a third-party ballot line. So as a result, generation of socialists have been within the Democratic Party tent and a major part of the New Deal coalition.
SOUNDCLIP
BERNIE SANDERS: Building on what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said when he fought for guaranteed economic rights for all Americans.
BHASKAR SUNKARA: A leading force behind movements like the Civil Rights movement.
SOUNDCLIP
BERNIE SANDERS: Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor." End of quote.
[Crowd cheers]
BHASKAR SUNKARA: When the founder of the Democratic Socialist of America died in 1989, Senator Ted Kennedy said that Michael Harrington, you know, the founder's name, never believed that we could not do better. He never stopped urging us to do better. You know, I'm paraphrasing, but this is, I think, the sentiment that a large segment of American liberalism had towards socialists, particularly democratic socialists. That these were voices of conscience. These are good people that are part of our movement. But we were always in the fringes of American political life, especially during the Cold War. It's only really been in the last couple of decades, really the last decade and a half that American socialism has made a more full-throated resurgence.
JP: I want to talk to you about this moment, um, that is the momentum, essentially, that's been building around democratic socialism. I'll just run through some examples here for people listening. You have the election of Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York.
SOUNDCLIP
ZOHRAN MAMDANI: The conventional wisdom would tell you that I am far from the perfect candidate. I am young despite my best efforts to grow older.
[Crowd yells “No!”]
ZOHRAN MAMDANI: I am Muslim.
[Crowd cheers]
ZOHRAN MAMDANI: I am a democratic socialist!
[Louder cheer from crowd]
ZOHRAN MAMDANI: And most damning of all, I refuse to apologize for any of this.
[Cheering]
JP: Just last month, two of three winning insurgent candidates he endorsed in congressional primaries across New York identified as democratic socialists.
SOUNDCLIP
REPORTER: Two sitting congressmen, long-standing establishment Democrats, were toppled. Another open seat won. The winning candidates ran on a shared platform of radical change, promising to abolish ICE, taxing the rich, but also ending unconditional arms sales to Israel.
JP: In Colorado, 29-year-old democratic socialist Melat Kiros ousted a long-time congressional representative. In L.A., a democratic socialist is currently in the mayoral runoff. Seattle is also governed by a democratic socialist. Washington D.C. is likely to follow, as I understand it. Both Michigan and Maine could also soon become the site of major victories by democratic socialist candidates. And many more officials across the country were elected after endorsements from the Democratic Socialists of America. How would you characterize the energy around socialism in the U.S. today and to what do you attribute it to?
BHASKAR SUNKARA: Well, I think at least part of this momentum has to do with the fact that we do live in a deeply unequal society and it's unequal at its roots. And any sort of class society, even if you want to make the argument that capitalism does more good than harm, any society with this level of inequality and this level inherent disparities between those who own and those who have nothing to sell but their labour is going to provoke some sort of egalitarian response. And I think the triumphalism of people who thought that all the political questions or the major political questions were being settled already discounted the extent to which there's always been, since the days of the Gracchi brothers in Rome and the early Christians and so on, there's always been movements for egalitarian change in this world. And this generation is no exception. I think what's particularly interesting though is that the name of this egalitarian resistance is the name of democratic socialism. And in most parts of the world, from the middle of the 19th century through to the end of the 20th century, it would have been taken for granted that those who felt like they were not benefiting from the current system would identify with the language and imagery of socialism. But given the particularity of American history, it's very strange to some degree. And I think a lot of this just has to do with chance. It has to be with the fact that Bernie Sanders was someone who was politicized in the late 1950s. I don't know Bernie super, super well, but I had a conversation with him once where he referred to, um, the Brooklyn Dodgers leaving Brooklyn as a major politicizing moment for him, because he saw the way in which, you know, big capitalists can just do what they want with the property that they own with no regard to the community. And I said, Bernie, the media already thinks you're too old to be president. You know, [laughs] this was a few years ago. You shouldn't invoke the Brooklyn Dodgers in such a way. But, you know, this was a man who was politicized. He joined the Young People's Socialist League when he was at the University of Chicago fighting for the rights of meatpacking workers in Chicago for civil rights. So he was ingrained in a mid-20th century socialist tradition, and he carried that with him in his political career. And when he ran for president in 2016, he self-described as a democratic socialist because that was his history, that was his formative years. And I think a lot of young people who were attracted to him, adopting the label, just had to do with that. And so, so I'm not sure... I think it's just contingency and chance, and having like almost Bernie, um... you know, not to, not to be too dismissive of his age, but almost being like a human time capsule of a [JP: Yeah.] certain period that allowed it to become this mass phenomenon again. Especially among, you know, millennials and now Gen Z in the U.S.
JP: I mean, a lot of these people running today, they would have been kind of formulating their political beliefs at university or something probably, in 2016, when Bernie did his first run, right? You were talking a little bit about attitudes and polling. I just wanted to bring up this new Gallup poll that found that 66% of Democrats now hold a favourable view of socialism, while just 42% hold a favourable view of capitalism. Does it surprise you that the numbers are the way that they are?
BHASKAR SUNKARA: Well, I think in part, it doesn't surprise me because of how loosely defined all these terms are, to be perfectly honest, so. Also the American right, um, to the extent socialism was alive in American civil society in the early 2000s, it was alive as a pejorative. You know, they would call Barack Obama a radical Kenyan socialist, right? They would call even a plan that I frankly consider to have some good parts to it, but overall to be a giveaway to the health insurance companies and Obamacare, as a sort of Marxist plot aimed at subverting American free enterprise. So they actually injected a lot of this language by associating socialism not with bread lines and gulags, but with redistributive programs that a lot of people like and wanted. And also, it just so happens that some of the most visible and talented politicians in the Democratic Party, people like Zohran Mamdani, people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are Democratic Socialists of America members, and do identify with this label of socialism. So, you know, I'm, again, not super surprised, in that-- in the sense that this, this now de-radicalized term can get more residents. And again, if we zoom out into the global arena, even, you know, the centre-left in the U.K., in the case of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair -- maybe the centre-right, you could say -- identify with a party that is programmatically committed to democratic socialism. This is kind of the norm for countries all around the world. You know, the U.S. and Canada being kind of rare exceptions of countries that haven't traditionally had a first or second party that has been nominally kind of committed to, um, to socialism.
JP: Is democratic socialism ultimately trying to save or reform capitalism, or replace it?
BHASKAR SUNKARA: So I think there's different varieties of democratic socialism. In the immediate term, the types of changes that I would like to see are changes that we could call social democratic reforms. So, attempts to administer many, many doses of socialism within capitalism, but ultimately not challenging the right of ordinary capitalists to start businesses and employ labour and, you know, engage in this kind of competitive, you know, market economy. And I think that's what a lot of people mean by democratic socialism. They essentially mean a social democracy, but one that is going to encounter such rigorous opposition from rich people, and particularly from the big corporations in the U.S., that it actually requires quite militant rhetoric and demands to even win something that has been won in much of the world, like single payer health care or, you know, some sort of American national health service or something. Would require taking on basically one-fifth of the American GDP. So in that respect, you could understand why militant rhetoric and language might be -- and tactics -- might be needed to even achieve goals that, again, were achieved decades ago, um, elsewhere. But for a socialist like me, we believe in something deeper and a more radical transformation, which is the idea that the means of production -- to use the old language of the Marxist left -- should in fact be socialized. Yeah, I'm a market socialist. I think the market is a wonderful coordinating mechanism to signal what people desire and to coordinate goods and services. But ultimately, I think the firms competing in this market economy should be administered by the people who work there. Again, even if they have to elect management, even if there has to be a pretty extensive division of labour, even if there has to be plenty of wage disparities within those firms, um, I think that workers deserve not just the power to exit like we have within capitalism but not feudalism -- the power to leave our jobs and find new ones, to exert our bargaining power there -- but also that they deserve voice at the, at the job. And in my mind, that is a vision that more and more people can get behind. But honestly, if you can't win something like Medicare for All or an American NHS in the U.S., then it becomes almost silly to foreground so much your far-reaching demand. But me as a democratic socialist, a lot of people in the Democratic Socialists of America, have this far-reaching goal of socialization that we're not afraid to talk about, you know, as it is relevant, as it comes up.
JP: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Do you worry though that by talking about that, um, you might freak some people out?
BHASKAR SUNKARA: I think... You know, Michael Harrington, the founder of DSA, used to say something to the effect that socialists and radicals as a whole had to walk a tightrope. So on the one hand, we had-- we could fall to our left into, you know, a pit of just talking about our far vision of a new society. And the problem with that is that we would just be talking about our vision, but we would almost be aloof to the demands of actual movements fighting not to transform the system, but for some little incremental dignity, or even just kind of a piece of, piece of bread and not having to worry about losing their job and losing their health care and, and things like that. So, lofty talk can often isolate yourself to the left. But also to the right, I think, is the danger of subsuming our vision in a very narrow prism of what's possible. And I think that's the other danger as well, because I think what people were attracted to with a candidate like Zohran Mamdani, was the fact that he thought everything was broken and everything needed kind of a reform or change. And obviously when in power, he's governing very responsibly. He's governing as someone who, right now, administers a police department with over 30,000 armed men and women, you know, bigger than a lot of standing armies in the world. He administers a budget in the billions. He, by many accounts, at least the polls think that he's doing a very good job in his first six or seven months in, in office. So I think we always need to balance those two things. We always just need to communicate a vision that explains our principles, but also explains the fact that, you know, the democratic comes before socialist for a reason. You know, ultimately this is going to be a vision that we win over a majority of people to, or it's not going to be enacted.
JP: You mentioned throughout this conversation the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, several times, this organization that you were once vice-chair of. They're the largest socialist organization in American history, I believe, um, at the centre of many careers of the politicians that people listening will know. Ocasio-Cortez, Mamdani. They give support for grassroots campaigns that can boost their name ID. And as you said, I think, it's not an independent political party. Obviously, they filter their candidates through the Democratic Party. And I just wonder if you could talk to me a little bit more about the role that the organization plays in American politics today, or the role that you think that it is playing.
BHASKAR SUNKARA: The DSA is actually, in a sense, not a political party, because we don't aim to have our own ballot line. But in another sense, also the only major political party in American political life because we have 125,000 or so members. Those members are active in their chapters. They have to pay their dues every month. They elect the leadership. They vote on platforms. They vote on whether or not to endorse a candidate. At a somewhat recent election forum in New York City, Zohran Mamdani -- who was mayor-elect at the time, not yet mayor -- wanted to speak, you know, in favour or against or neutral on a particular proposal. He showed up to the meeting and, you know, he waited in line. Of course, you know, he didn't really have to wait in line, we would have let him cut to the front of the lines. But, he waited in line. Which again made his two-minute intervention, when he was going over a little bit over two minutes, someone told him to, um... you know, he had to wrap up. This is not that unusual for people around the world used to parliamentary traditions because in a parliamentary system, you know, your um party leader is just an ordinary MP and that MP can be voted out, and-- or, you know, your prime minister can change if the party decides to elect a new leader through its internal processes. In an American-style presidential system with weak parties, this is extremely, you know, unusual. [JP: Mm-hmm.] So I would say that the Democratic Socialists of America is essentially a political party just without a ballot line, in part because it is so difficult to get on the ballot in the U.S. If that was our goal, that's all we would be doing. And we would have the risk of a spoiler effect, which we don't have, um, you know, now, [JP: Right.] through our mechanism only running in primaries, and generally voting for whatever Democrat gets through a primary process.
JP: Right, right. Because I'm sure if there are a few things that you agree on with establishment Democrats, it's probably, you know, beating the Republicans, right?
BHASKAR SUNKARA: Yes.
JP: Yes. But I do want to talk to you about the reaction within the Democratic Party and among its establishment leaders to this wave of DSA-endorsed candidates. Some of whom-- well, many of whom articulate this really more radical vision for the party itself, and there has been open debate about primarying all these establishment figures like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, previously Nancy Pelosi, among lots of others. Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville has talked about not wanting to be in the same party as someone like New York City Congressional nominee Avila Chevalier.
SOUNDCLIP
JAMES CARVILLE: These people are really out there, and a lot of people feel like I do. We just don't want to be in the same political party with them.
INTERVIEWER: Do you think this endangers--
JAMES CARVILLE: I hope they feel the same way about me.
JP: Former chair of the Democratic Party, Jaime Harrison, has said about the socialist wing of the party, "if your movement is so strong, why does it keep needing the Democratic party's ballot line, infrastructure, volunteers, donors, and voter file to win? Apparently your apparatus isn't strong enough to do it on its own." You've addressed some of those issues in your last answer, but what do you make of how the Democratic Party has responded to its democratic socialist contingency? Is there a world in which the two are able to coexist successfully?
BHASKAR SUNKARA: Well, I think some parts of the Democratic Party or existing Democrats have responded quite constructively. Barack Obama, for instance, has done events with Zohran Mamdani.
SOUNDCLIP
[Classroom children yelling "Mamdani!"]
[Zohran Mamdani gasps]
[Laughter]
BARACK OBAMA: What's his first name?
CHILD: Mayor Mamdani.
[Laughter]
BARACK OBAMA: Mayor? His first name's Mayor?
ZOHRAN MAMDANI: Mayor! Mayor!
BARACK OBAMA: That's his-- his name is Mayor?
BHASKAR SUNKARA: A lot of people around the Obama coalition, like David Axelrod, have, you know, said, oh, we should pay attention to why people are voting for them, they have a lot of good points. And once we won Democratic Party primaries, the Obama types like Axelrod and others have been the first to congratulate Democrats and congratulate the Democratic Party nominee, and not support even independent runs by other Democrats like Andrew Cuomo against Zohran Mamdani. Other people have been more, um, more hostile. You know, of course, the political system in the U.S. is constructed in some way. No one organization without massive constitutional reform would be able to escape this dilemma of having to run on one of the major party ballot lines. But I think the best version of the criticism from people like James Carville has to do with winning over semi-rural and rural districts and winning over areas that lean more Republican. And so much of the Democratic Socialists of America sort of push. And successful primaries have happened in deep blue district, where we're turning liberal or just generally centre-left districts into further left socialist districts. And I think it is a real challenge to think about how we translate our appeals to areas that are more socially conservative, are more rural. And I think this will have to happen through trial and error over time.
JP: Tell me more about how you think you might do that or if you've seen anything that you think could be working, and if you think -- you know, I know, I know it's a big tent and there are a lot of political, you know, views in a movement, but if you think kind of some of the more controversial policies like abolishing border police, or the police are like a distraction or, or aren't helping you achieve that goal.
BHASKAR SUNKARA: Yeah, I mean, first of all, of course, some policies pushed by some democratic socialists are not only not popular but are broadly counterproductive in my mind. Like for example, when it comes to demands previous for defunding the police or something like that, you know, policing's a social good. It can be done well, it could be done poorly. In my mind, having less resources or no resources for policing are only going to attract the worst people to policing and ensure less accountability, less training, less whatever. And I think this is common sense across not just the centre-left, but the far left and in Europe and across much of the world. In the U.S., because of the particular nature and history of policing in the U.S., because of racialized outcomes and policing and other things, you can understand the disgruntlement, but I think the policy solution there was wrong. Um. Now, when it comes to winning over these districts, I think it's worth noting that the phenomenon of what we would call class de-alignment of parties, that, um, are of the centre-left and of the far left -- they had traditionally had the allegiances of workers really since their founding, all the way through 20, 30 years ago -- now are relying more and more on a professional class base. And a lot of workers are kind of drifting into a million different directions including apathy. I follow the, you know, Canadian politics and situation a lot, um, more loosely nowadays, but obviously lots of debates within the NDP as it relates to particularly in Alberta and other places kind of get to this point of, like, are we losing over-- losing our traditional base, and what would it take to kind of win back over these people. [JP: Mm-hmm.] I think, one, we shouldn't be excessively pessimistic about the ability of rural voters to embrace egalitarian demands, because a lot of these people have the same struggles, are worried about the same things as their peers in other areas. So I think just showing up and organizing is at least part of the battle. I also think it's really important to run campaigns in dialogue with constituents to come up with demands that actually meet particular, you know, districts. So for example, he is certainly not a socialist but he's a left populist: Dan Osborn in Nebraska, who ran 14 points above Harris running as an independent, um, for Nebraska Senate. One of his major demands is the right to repair. The idea that if you have the John Deere tractor, you should be allowed to open it up and perform basic maintenance on it without voiding your warranty. Because right now with a lot of these farm goods, if you even open it up, if you even replace something very small, you void your warranty and they make you take it to an authorized service centre, and not even like your regular mechanic down the road who might be able to handle it. And of course, that's essentially a cartel that boosts prices. No democratic socialist in America has a problem with that demand. None of us are in the pocket of like John Deere or something like that. But it's not something that, as a New Yorker, would ever occur to me. I do not have like a patch of grass in front of my apartment building, much less, like, need for a riding mower. But, so I think a lot of this will come from that. And also, if you hear, you know, Dan Osborn talk about, let's say, immigration, Osborn will be in a room filled with Trump supporters and he'll give two sentences on immigration, and the first one will make every democratic socialist gasp, and he'll say:
SOUNDCLIP
DAN OSBORN: I am not afraid to say that I believe that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did not do a good job on the border.
BHASKAR SUNKARA: You know, 'I agree with Donald Trump. We need a strong border.' But then the second sentence would be, 'but I can't tolerate these ICE tactics and these ICE policies of separating mothers from their children.' And then he'll get applause from a room full of people who otherwise voted for Donald Trump. And I have to ask you, what's more progressive, saying abolish ICE in New York City -- a demand that I agree with. I think we need some sort of border custom enforcement, but this actual institution I think needs to be kind of ripped up and recreated at its roots. But what's more progressive, me saying that in New York City, or Dan Osborn saying that and winning over kind of the middle and the right-- a certain portion of the persuadable right in American politics in Nebraska? And I would argue that the latter is objectively more progressive.
JP: One of the defining ideas of American life has been that hard work produces upward mobility. The American dream, right? We've all heard it. That the U.S. is the land of possibility and abundance, that through hard work and determination, success can be made available to you. Much of this dream has rested on the individual: the rights of the individual, the land of the individual, the freedom and liberty of the individual. And democratic socialism, as you have laid out, is about collectivism and seems to begin from kind of the premise that the American story itself is not sufficient, even that like it's a myth. And so what version of the American dream does the democratic socialist outlook rely on?
BHASKAR SUNKARA: I think the democratic socialist outlook actually relies on something pretty close to the original vision of the American dream, which is a vision that was popularized in the 1930s but drew on labour Republican discourses of freedom, of independence and the vision of the yeoman farmer of the 19th century. And I'll take it far away from America to this famous song of the German labour movement, the "United Front Song." And it described the worker as wanting no servants under him and no master above him. And I think that's still true of a lot of Americans. It's actually why I think Americans valorize small business ownership. It's why they valorize just the idea of being free of someone else. It's why they valorize, you know, just kind of driving out west and finding a little quiet part of the world where you can kind of exist with your family and you could, you know, not be burdened by, you know, the troubles and oppressions that a lot of people were fleeing out, out east. And, you know, obviously we know the true historical record, we know about the displacement of Native people, we know what a lot this meant in practice. And nowadays, so many young people don't actually believe that a better life is possible. And I think that sort of cynicism is kind of fool's gold for the socialist movement. Because we actually need people to believe that something else is possible and that politics, in addition to their own hard work and personal virtues and other things that we all as individuals need to cultivate, is part of living a better life. You know, my parents came from Trinidad and Tobago the year before I was born. You know, I'm glad they came to the U.S., and um, you know, they came to the U.S. for a reason. So I still very much believe in the promise of the U.S. I just think that, you know, building a better life requires social solutions to social problems, not just individual solutions. Though again, you know, I want to live in a society that cultivates individual, you know, virtue and hard work and things like that as well.
JP: Okay. Bhaskar, this was really interesting talking to you. Thank you so much for your time
BHASKAR SUNKARA: Thanks for having me.
JP: All right, that is all for today. I'm Jayme Poisson, thanks so much for listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment