REPUBLICAN “SOCIALISM” ATTACKS AGAINST
DEMOCRATS – A RESPONSE

By Loy Waldrop
Precinct Chair, KCDP

The current Republican Party fundraising apparatus is engaged in a persistent propaganda campaign to convince potential contributors and voters that the national Democratic Party intends to impose “Socialism” on America.   Perennial Republican gnat, Newt Gingrich asserted in an opinion commentary made available in September 2021 that Republicans had an opportunity to “rebrand” Democrats as “Big Government Socialists.”[i]  The usual narrative constructed by Newt and other Republican propagandists is a tale of “Free Market Capitalism” juxtaposed against “Big Government Socialism.” No attempt was made by Newt to define “socialism” in his commentary nor by other conservative Republicans in their games of “pin a socialist tail” on a Democrat donkey.  Apparently, elements in the Republican Party hope that labeling current Democratic Party initiatives as “socialism” will raise the specter of Soviet Russia, Castro’s Cuba and Mao’s China in the minds of prospective donors and voters and thus serve the Party’s most nefarious purposes without ever defining “socialism.”  Stating the truth about “socialism” in America requires a level of candor that many Republicans currently avoid.   Republican propaganda efforts about socialism are greatly aided by the lack of one, agreed definition of what is “socialism.”   There is a critical difference between government provided social benefits financed through taxes as in Social Security and Medicare and rigid government control of all or most aspects of national commerce as in the deceased Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Exploiting the absence of an agreed socialism definition, the current Republican Party fails to make any distinction between “social programs” and “socialism.”  A relatively brief review of the history of socialism reveals a high degree of dishonesty and hypocrisy in broad Republican attacks on American “socialism.”   “Socialism” typically is defined as “a range of economic and social systems characterized by social (or common) ownership of the means of production”[ii] and as “collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and the distribution of goods.”[iii]  “Capitalism” is usually defined as an economic system in which the production and distribution of goods and services is privately owned and operated for profit.[iv]   

Historically, socialism was not invented by Karl Marx (1818-1883), and socialist administration of a society did not begin with the 1917 Russian revolution instigated by Lenin and his associates.  Although Marx advocated the collective or common ownership of private property (communism) and is credited with his famous (or infamous) creed: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need,”[v]  actually, socialism and even communism[vi] is at least as old as the early Christian era.  In the Biblical Book of Acts, an early Christian community is described in “socialist” and even “communist” terms[vii]:

All whose faith had drawn them together held everything in common:  they would sell their property and possessions and make a general distribution as the need of each required. Acts 2:44-45[viii] 

The whole body of believers was united in heart and soul.  Not a man of them claimed any of his possessions as his own, but everything was held in common, while the apostles bore witness with great power to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.   They were all held in high esteem, for they had never a needy person among them, because all who had property, land or houses sold it, brought the proceeds of the sale, and laid the money at the feet of the apostles; it was then distributed to any who stood in need.  Acts 4:32-35[ix]

Subsequently, there were efforts to develop “socialism” further.   In 1639, The Guilford Covenant congregation vowed: “We . . . do faithfully promise each, for ourselves and our families and those that belong to us, that we will, the Lord assisting us, sit down and join ourselves together . . .  and be helpful each to the other in any common work, according to every man’s ability, and as need shall require. . . .”[x]

Over a century later, Welsh industrialist Robert Owen (1771-1858) initiated the formation of communal societies in New Lanark, Scotland and New Harmony, Indiana in the early 19th century.[xi]  Owen also advocated the payment of higher than prevailing wages, an eight-hour workday and early childhood education, all very progressive ideas for his time.[xii]  Other attempts to form “socialist” societies followed in the 18th and 19th centuries including the Paris Commune of 1871.  

An American communal life example, the Amana Colonies, began in Germany around 1714 and left Germany for the US in 1843-44.[xiii]  Ultimately the colony moved to Iowa.  Like the early Christians described in Acts, the Amana members lived a communal lifestyle.  Meals were cooked and eaten in a communal kitchen.  The members did not own their own property or businesses which were shared.   Wages were not needed.  The Amana, Iowa colony, initially formed in 1855, existed in its communal form until the Great Depression caused changes around 1932. Amana kitchen appliances were developed in this colony.  The Amana villages still exist and can be visited.  

The Israeli kibbutz movement that began in the early 20th century provides a contemporary example of voluntary communal societies.[xiv]   Some Kibbutzim collect the income generated by Kibbutz members in a common pool that is used to operate the Kibbutz and to provide the same budget to families based on family size without regard to job or position.[xv]

Republican attacks on “socialism” not only ignore historic socialism but further ignore the multiple examples of “socialism” already prevalent in the US.   The Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) is a “New Deal” federal government creation in 1935 and headquartered in Knoxville.  TVA is clearly “socialist” (if “socialism” is government ownership of the means of production and distribution) and likely the largest such socialist entity in the US.  With around 10,000 employees currently, TVA is a large federal government corporation[xvi] whose board is nominated by the President and confirmed by the US Senate.  TVA is engaged in the production and sale of electric power (obviously the government ownership of the means of production and the distribution of that production).  In a 2016 article advocating the privatization of TVA, criticisms of TVA include its exemptions “from a range of regulations that are imposed on private electricity producers, it can borrow cheaply because it is owned by the government, and its power is sold at retail by subsidized local utilities” and  “[TVA] has somewhat higher rates than utilities in nearby states today, despite the tax and regulatory advantages that it enjoys.”[xvii]  President Dwight Eisenhower “referred to TVA as an example of ‘creeping socialism.’”[xviii]   Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, in his 1964 campaign, advocated the privatization of TVA.[xix]    Ronald Reagan described TVA as an example of “big government.”[xx]  Subsequently, however, Republicans opposed the Obama administration’s 2013 proposal to sell TVA.   Fox News quoted Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy as stating:   

“For the first time that I’m aware of, you’ve got a Democratic administration proposing the sale of TVA and simultaneously you’ve got significant, conservative federal representatives in the House and Senate defending their local socialist project.”[xxi]

  Although the sale of TVA would have reduced the federal deficit by as much as $25 billion, the proposed sale was attacked by some Republican politicians including then Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, and Knoxville area Member of Congress John Duncan.[xxii]  Apparently, for some Republican politicians, there is “good socialism” (a large government owned corporation that employs thousands of people in their state or district and that provides their voters with cheap electric power in competition with private “capitalist” utility companies) and “bad socialism” (the kind that is in some other state or district).    

Republican “socialist” hypocrisy is not limited to the Tennessee Valley Authority.   Public education, funded by taxes, its facilities owned by local and/or state governments, its employees paid by local and/or state governments, and engaged in the government (“common”) ownership, production, and distribution of “education” in competition with private education providers, is never described by Republicans as “socialist.” Similarly, publicly owned and operated hospitals, such as the University of Tennessee hospital campuses, and county or city owned and operated hospitals,[xxiii] prevalent in many states including Tennessee, are other examples of “socialism” (based on the typical definition of socialism) that are widely appreciated, accepted, and seldom if ever criticized for being “socialist.” 

Local publicly (“in common”) owned utility districts that provide water, sewers, and electricity to millions in large areas of the United States illustrate more examples of American “socialism” in action.   These utilities, financed by user fees (a form of taxes) are commonly owned to provide the efficient distribution of essential services that would otherwise be subject to the vagaries of private ownership where profit likely would be the primary motive, not service. 

Social Security is an American social program first enacted in 1935 during the depression as part of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” that initially was characterized as “socialist” but currently is rarely attacked by Republicans as “socialism,” likely because of its popularity.  Medicare is another federal program initially enacted in 1965 that fits within a broad “socialism” definition, but, like Social Security, Medicare is rarely termed “socialism” by contemporary conservative Republicans, again, likely because Republicans recognize the popularity of Medicare.   Just as in Scandinavian countries, these programs are more reasonably defined as “social welfare,” not “socialism” as it is more typically defined. 

Republican efforts to label current Democrats as “socialists” likely are aided by the comments of contemporary “progressive” politicians such as Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders.   In his campaigns, he has characterized himself as a “Democratic Socialist,” and, in doing so, is a successor in some respects to Indiana’s Eugene V. Debs, an early twentieth century labor organizer and five-time Socialist Party candidate for president. On Sanders’ website (www.berniesanders.com), his advocacy includes “Medicare for All,” “College for All,” and an expansion of Social Security.   Among his proposals to fund these and other aspects of his major plans, he proposes the establishment of “an annual tax on the extreme wealth of the top 0.1 percent of U.S. households.”   Proponents of “Democratic Socialism” distinguish it from the purported socialism of the Russian dominated Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by rejecting the authoritarian control and government planned economy that failed in the USSR.[xxiv] 

Many of Sanders’ legislative programs reflect key elements of societies present in Scandinavia.   These contemporary European social systems provide strawmen for Republican efforts to link American Democrats with “socialism.”  Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) are favorite targets for this type of Republican attack on “socialism.” Scandinavians, however, depending on the definition of socialism that is used, refute descriptions of their societies as “socialist.”  Finland has public health care, public day care and education, paid parental leave, and unemployment insurance, primarily financed by taxes.   But Finland has been described quite recently as a “Capitalist Paradise.”[xxv] The Finnish government does not rigidly control the Finnish economy that is predominantly “free market.”  Similarly, Sweden has medical care administered by regional health bodies funded by local and regional taxes.[xxvi]  Patients pay only a small part of health care costs and dental care is covered by regional councils to age 23 and thereafter is subsidized by the national government.[xxvii]  Swedish health care costs in 2019 were around 11 per cent of GDP.[xxviii]  In the same time frame, the U.S. healthcare costs were almost 17 per cent of GDP, the highest of 43 countries listed.[xxix]  Sweden also has public day care and education, paid parental leave and unemployment insurance.[xxx]  While Sweden has a significant welfare state, according to one Swedish author, Sweden is characterized by “ruthless capitalism.”[xxxi]  If “socialism” is defined as a free market capitalist economy with publicly funded health care, social policies such as public day care and education and government required paid parental leave, then Scandinavian countries could be loosely defined as “socialist.”  If, however, “socialism” is defined as USSR and Cuban style authoritarian government control, government ownership of a large part of the economy, and central economic planning, then Scandinavian countries are not “socialist.”  It all depends on the definition used, and today’s Republicans apparently abhor definitions and prefer to encourage images of the USSR and Cuba rather than the reality of Denmark, Finland, or Sweden.  

Most likely, the real authors of Republican Party fund raising schemes attacking Democrat sponsored legislation as “Big Government Socialism” are aware of the history, popularity, and current prevalence of socialism, whether social welfare programs or government provided utilities in the world at large and the United States in particular.   Their publications, however, are characterized by a letter in May 2021 sent over the signature of Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel trolling for dollars by asserting that Democrats are engaged in “Big Government Socialist schemes.”   Tennessee Senator Bill Hagerty included a similar tune in his own May 2021 fund raising orchestration by seeking dollars to help him oppose a “socialist agenda” and a “lurch toward socialism.” In early 2022, the Republican National Committee sent more letters soliciting funds by accusing Democrats of supporting “Socialist policies that are indoctrinating our children.” None of these Republican solicitation letters ever defined what is meant by “Socialist” or “socialism.”   The national Republican Party propaganda apparatus and many of its politicians are equally silent concerning what comprises the “socialist” label that they work so hard to attach to Democrats.  

Considering the historical context and the clear existence of reasonably successful “socialist” institutions such as TVA in the United States, it is obvious why the Republican Party avoids any definition of “Socialism” when drafting their propaganda tactics to mislead and scare potential voters.  “Socialism,” whether represented by government ownership and control as in TVA or social welfare as in Social Security and Medicare, is widely present now in America, is popular with a large segment of American voters, and “socialism” is defended by Republicans when politically expedient.  

The United States clearly has a “mixed economy” with aspects of capitalism and socialism.   This economy includes government provided museums, parks, hospitals, roads, bridges, airports, seaports, and utilities in addition to social programs.  Republicans, however, deny Democrats contemporary credit for programs such as Social Security and Medicare and don’t acknowledge the “socialist” aspects of public education, publicly owned facilities and institutions, hospitals, and utilities, all generally popular, or for voters to be reminded of an early Christian context to socialism. The truthful emphasis should be on what works best and practically for the American people, whether it is Medicare, Social Security, TVA, or a local utility district, regardless of the political label applied to it.  Instead, current Republicans use tactics and labels fomented by scheming politicians to create fear and confusion about American “socialism.”   Such patent dishonesty deserves contempt and rejection, not votes or dollars.

Back to Newt Gingrich.   How much credibility does Newt have when he prognosticates about the ability of Republicans to “rebrand” Democrats as socialists?  Well, on August 23, 2020, Newt stated that the chances of Trump getting reelected that November were extremely good.  “I’m predicting that it will be a dramatically bigger victory than people currently expect” said Newt on Fox News “Watters World.”[xxxii]  So, you can decide about Newt.   And about current Republican “socialism” propaganda.  

Loy Waldrop

Knoxville, Tennessee

© 2022

 


[i] www.gingrich360.com/2021/09/13/the-republican-opportunity/

[ii]   https://en.wikipedia.org > wiki > Socialism.

[iii] https://www.investopedia.com > … >Behavioral Economics; see also https:www.britannica.com > topic > socialism.

[iv] https://en.wikipeida.org > wiki > Capitalism; see also https:www.britannica.com > topic > Capitalism

[v] Marx, Karl. “Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875; see also Etienne-Gabriel Morelly, “Code of Nature, 1775: “Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.”  See generally https://en.wikipedia.org > wiki > From_each_according_t . . . .

[vi] “Communism” is usually defined as a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, where the socioeconomic order is structured upon the ideals of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. https://en.wikipedia.org > wiki > Communism.  The most significant difference between communism and socialism is that communism seeks to eliminate or severely curtail the private ownership of property.  

[vii] See Dr. John Holbert, “Christian Communism?” – Reflections on Acts 4:32-35, https://pcpe.sum.edu/blog/christian-communism-reflections-on-acts-4-32-35; compare: Jay W. Richards, “No, the Early Church Was Not Communist”, June 5, 2017, https://www.discovery.org > Economics.  . 

[viii] The New English Bible, Acts of the Apostles, pp. 149-150, Chapter 2, verses 44-45; Oxford University Press, Second Edition 1970.

[ix] The New English Bible, Acts of the Apostles, p. 152, Chapter 4, verses 32-35; Ibid.

[x] The Guilford Covenant, 1639

[xi] En.m.wikipeida.org/wiki/Robert_Owen

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] https://www.amanacolonies.com

[xiv] https:archive.jewishagency.org

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] https://www.tva.com > about-tva

[xvii] Chris Edwards, “Privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority,” Cato Institute, Downsizing the Federal Government, October 14, 2016.

[xviii] https://www.tva.com/about-tva/our-history/tva-heritage/the-great-compromise

[xix] NY Times, September 17, 1964 reporting on a September 16, 1964 Goldwater speech in Montgomery, AL;

[xx]“Republicans Reverse History with TVA Defense.” Forbes Magazine, May 3, 2013

[xxi] www.foxnews.com > politics > republicans-blast-obama: [Fox News, April 16, 2013: Republicans blast Obama proposal to sell Tennessee Valley Authority]

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] The Rhea Medical Center, in Dayton, Rhea County, Tennessee, is a county-owned, non-profit organization, governed by a seven-member board of directors.   https://www.rheamedical.org.

[xxiv] Wikipedia; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic Socialism, 1/79

[xxv]Anu Partanen and Trevor Corson, “Finland is a Capitalist Paradise.” The New York Times, December 7, 2019

[xxvi] https://Sweden.se > life > society > health-care-in-sweden

[xxvii] Ibid.

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268826/health-expenditures-as-gdp-percentage-in-oecd-countries/

[xxx] https://Sweden.se > life > society > work-life-balance; see also Child care in Sweden – Skolverket, https//skolverat.se > pdf633; “The U.S. Should Copy Sweden and Denmark’s Work-Family Policies,” The New Republic, July 22, 2014.  

[xxxi] Adam O’Neal, quoting Johan Norber; “Why Bernie Sanders is Wrong about Sweden,” The Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2019.

[xxxii] www.foxnews.com >media>newt-gingrich-says-tr . . .; Watters World, August 23, 2020.