ADVERTISEMENT

Why we shouldn't refer to Harris and Walz as communists

BradStevens

All-American
Sep 7, 2023
8,190
15,580
113
I've spilled a lot of digital ink defending Trump from the fascist label. One, because he's not. Two, because it cheapens the word fascist. Three, (most important to me), because it ramps up the political climate and creates space for people to justify unethical or harmful methods to defeat him. I think it's undeniable that we've seen that harm over the last 8 years.

But I've personally been pretty much immune to the communist label my whole life. That's probably because I thought the people making the accusation stupid or I had a soft spot in my heart for communism--because I thought its failures a result of the particular circumstances (stop trying it in peasant societies so close to feudalism! Read your Marx!), because I thought it was championed by people with good hearts, and because the ultimate utopian goals appealed to me and I thought them possible. I've become more educated and now mostly disavow those apologetics.

So now, I think it's important to remind everyone that referring to Harris and Walz and their vision as communist is wrong--as wrong as labeling Trump a fascist. Neither Harris nor Walz is, or has, called for nationalizing large swaths of industry, let alone abolishing private property. Neither is calling for a one-party state. Neither wants the kind of wide-ranging central planning communist states have imposed (yes, I know they want some) and we aren't close to a police state where we are spied upon and turned in for the wrong speech only to turn up dead or exiled. One could more accurately refer to them as socialists or proponents of socialistic policies and I think that's fair--they might prefer, like Sanders for example, to move the US towards more of a Scandinavian or European model. And we can debate if that is desirable or achievable. But communism is a different fish altogether.

By continuing to label Harris and Walz communist, though, I fear the following: (1) cheapening the term to the point where it is no longer useful; (2) failing to understand the theoretical difference between socialism and communism in history and confusing the public; (3) failing to appreciate the particular hell that developed under the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian versions of communism and so minimize their horrors; (4) creating space and excuses for political violence and harmful means to achieve the end of defeating the communists; and maybe most importantly (5) driving current Democratic supporters of Harris and Walz into the arms of communist thought and thinkers (and they do exist on college campuses--I studied under some at IU and know a handful now at different universities), making those (especially the young) people susceptible to accepting more or less communist policies in the future because the right has currently labeled the left as communists.

None of this is to say we shouldn't analyze particular policies by each party and think about their potential analogs in either fascist Germany or Italy or communist nations. We should--it's useful to look at how those regimes might have used particular policies and then put up road blocks here to the same usage or culture. But we should be careful because those analogies should always be limited by the phrase "to a degree" since no historical analogies are perfect and those between fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century, on one hand, and America in the 2020s, on the other, are always suspect.
 
Last edited:
I've spilled a lot of digital ink defending Trump from the fascist label. One, because he's not. Two, because it cheapens the word fascist. Three, (most important to me), because it ramps up the political climate and creates space for people to justify unethical or harmful methods to defeat him. I think it's undeniable that we've seen that harm over the last 8 years.

But I've personally been pretty much immune to the communist label my whole life. That's probably because I thought the people making the accusation stupid or I had a soft spot in my heart for communism--because I thought its failures a result of the particular circumstances (stop trying it in peasant societies so close to feudalism! Read your Marx!), because I thought it was championed by people with good hearts, and because the ultimate utopian goals appealed to me and I thought them possible. I've become more educated and now mostly disavow those apologetics.

So now, I think it's important to remind everyone that referring to Harris and Walz and their vision as communist is wrong--as wrong as labeling Trump a fascist. Neither Harris nor Walz is, or has, called for nationalizing large swaths of industry, let alone abolishing private property. Neither is calling for a one-party state. Neither wants the kind of wide-ranging central planning communist states have imposed (yes, I know they want some) and we aren't close to a police state where we are spied upon and turned in for the wrong speech only to turn up dead or exiled. One could more accurately refer to them as socialists or proponents of socialistic policies and I think that's fair--they might prefer, like Sanders for example, to move the US towards more of a Scandinavian or European model. And we can debate if that is desirable or achievable. But communism is a different fish altogether.

By continuing to label Harris and Walz communist, though, I fear the following: (1) cheapening the term to the point where it is no longer useful; (2) failing to understand the theoretical difference between socialism and communism in history and confusing the public; (3) failing to appreciate the particular hell that developed under the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian versions of communism and so minimize their horrors; (4) creating space and excuses for political violence and harmful means to achieve the end of defeating the communists; and maybe most importantly (5) driving current Democratic supporters of Harris and Walz into the arms of communist thought and thinkers (and they do exist on college campuses--I studied under some at IU and know a handful now at different universities), making those (especially the young) people susceptible to accepting more or less communist policies in the future because the right has currently labeled the left as communists.

None of this is to say we shouldn't analyze particular policies by each party and think about their potential analogs in either fascist Germany or Italy or communist nations. We should--it's useful to look at how those regimes might have used particular policies and put up road blocks to the same usage or culture here. But we should be careful because those analogies should always be limited by the phrase "to a degree" since no historical analogies are perfect and those between fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century, on one hand, and America in the 2020s, on the other, are always suspect.
This is exactly what I would expect a communist to say. Not falling for it buddy. I’ll take Harris and Walz at their word. When I’m feeling charitable I’ll call them socialist. Also, for the record they would gladly take away rights and nationalize large parts of the economy (healthcare for example) if they could.
 
I've spilled a lot of digital ink defending Trump from the fascist label. One, because he's not. Two, because it cheapens the word fascist. Three, (most important to me), because it ramps up the political climate and creates space for people to justify unethical or harmful methods to defeat him. I think it's undeniable that we've seen that harm over the last 8 years.

But I've personally been pretty much immune to the communist label my whole life. That's probably because I thought the people making the accusation stupid or I had a soft spot in my heart for communism--because I thought its failures a result of the particular circumstances (stop trying it in peasant societies so close to feudalism! Read your Marx!), because I thought it was championed by people with good hearts, and because the ultimate utopian goals appealed to me and I thought them possible. I've become more educated and now mostly disavow those apologetics.

So now, I think it's important to remind everyone that referring to Harris and Walz and their vision as communist is wrong--as wrong as labeling Trump a fascist. Neither Harris nor Walz is, or has, called for nationalizing large swaths of industry, let alone abolishing private property. Neither is calling for a one-party state. Neither wants the kind of wide-ranging central planning communist states have imposed (yes, I know they want some) and we aren't close to a police state where we are spied upon and turned in for the wrong speech only to turn up dead or exiled. One could more accurately refer to them as socialists or proponents of socialistic policies and I think that's fair--they might prefer, like Sanders for example, to move the US towards more of a Scandinavian or European model. And we can debate if that is desirable or achievable. But communism is a different fish altogether.

By continuing to label Harris and Walz communist, though, I fear the following: (1) cheapening the term to the point where it is no longer useful; (2) failing to understand the theoretical difference between socialism and communism in history and confusing the public; (3) failing to appreciate the particular hell that developed under the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian versions of communism and so minimize their horrors; (4) creating space and excuses for political violence and harmful means to achieve the end of defeating the communists; and maybe most importantly (5) driving current Democratic supporters of Harris and Walz into the arms of communist thought and thinkers (and they do exist on college campuses--I studied under some at IU and know a handful now at different universities), making those (especially the young) people susceptible to accepting more or less communist policies in the future because the right has currently labeled the left as communists.

None of this is to say we shouldn't analyze particular policies by each party and think about their potential analogs in either fascist Germany or Italy or communist nations. We should--it's useful to look at how those regimes might have used particular policies and put up road blocks to the same usage or culture here. But we should be careful because those analogies should always be limited by the phrase "to a degree" since no historical analogies are perfect and those between fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century, on one hand, and America in the 2020s, on the other, are always suspect.

I try to avoid using shock labels as much as I can. I think a lot of ears go into shutdown mode whenever any of these terms are used to describe prominent contemporary politicians. I know that mine usually do. And that’s because the people who use these terms tend to do it frequently, recklessly, and without any substance. I pay them little mind and I doubt they’re persuading anybody of anything.

I remember when a lot of conservatives would refer to Bill Clinton as a socialist (or commie, etc) and I’d think “Huh? He’s about as moderate a Democrat as we’re likely to get. Be careful what you wish for.”
 
This is exactly what I would expect a communist to say. Not falling for it buddy. I’ll take Harris and Walz at their word. When I’m feeling charitable I’ll call them socialist. Also, for the record they would gladly take away rights and nationalize large parts of the economy (healthcare for example) if they could.
Drama Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
 
Walz also doesn't appear to believe in private ownership.

- No stocks
- No bonds
- No crypto
- No real estate
- No index funds
- No mutual funds
- No private equities
- No retirement accounts

Pretty incredible for a 60 year old man. What he does have presumably is at least a couple taxpayer funded pensions coming his way.
 
Walz also doesn't appear to believe in private ownership.

- No stocks
- No bonds
- No crypto
- No real estate
- No index funds
- No mutual funds
- No private equities
- No retirement accounts

Pretty incredible for a 60 year old man. What he does have presumably is at least a couple taxpayer funded pensions coming his way.
Allegedly 25% of Americans his age have no retirement savings. Real man of the people stuff. And yes, he has a couple of taxpayer funded pensions b/c he's worked in government or a school corp his whole life.

At least he's never been paid off as far as we can tell.


 
Allegedly 25% of Americans his age have no retirement savings. Real man of the people stuff. And yes, he has a couple of taxpayer funded pensions b/c he's worked in government or a school corp his whole life.

At least he's never been paid off as far as we can tell.


With his, karmala and tge DNC’s plan. Why would anyone need personal retirement?
The gubment gonna take care of them like a good big daddy would. It’s worked well for Harris in job promotions, I’m sure she would give lessons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01 and DANC
Allegedly 25% of Americans his age have no retirement savings. Real man of the people stuff. And yes, he has a couple of taxpayer funded pensions b/c he's worked in government or a school corp his whole life.

At least he's never been paid off as far as we can tell.


Financial illiteracy is not "man of the people" stuff in my book. I would argue what your figure really evidences is an over-reliance on social security. I would wager he has at least three if not four pensions.

- National Guard
- Teachers
- Congressional/ Federal
- Governors?

None of those alone is likely all that much, but combined that's a pretty healthy monthly income stream (and would go up with a stint as VP) he'll be collecting in retirement.

So maybe he actually is financially literate? He's figured out how to live high on the hog off the taxpayer dime.
 
Last edited:
Allegedly 25% of Americans his age have no retirement savings. Real man of the people stuff. And yes, he has a couple of taxpayer funded pensions b/c he's worked in government or a school corp his whole life.

At least he's never been paid off as far as we can tell.


There are definitely too many people who's peak working years were between 86-06 that don't have savings. I'm sure some bad luck and circumstances played a role.

But this dumbass I worked with when I started in July 08 was 55 had more than half mil invested in Russell 2000 100%. Lost over half when the market crashed. I told him to leave it alone and quit listening to NPR market news on way to work. Dude sold what was left for bonds. Held those and bought back Russell 2000 around 2010. Dude Lost his ass. That's just one example.
 
There are really no nationally recognizable Democrats who are actually communists. Communism has a definition, and Democrats don't fit it. Most of them aren't even socialists. Hell, even the ones who claim to be socialists aren't. It's in vogue for progressives to claim to be democratic socialists, but most of them are really espousing social democracy, which is sort of the watered down version of democratic socialism.

Words actually do have meanings, and we should try to use them correctly whenever possible.
 
What percentage of capital do governments get to control before you call them socialist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
What percentage of capital do governments get to control before you call them socialist?

That's a good question. But there really is no definitive answer. How much blue has to be in a specific color before you call it blue?

I think that roughly 40% of the US GDP is comprised of the public sectors at the federal, state, and local levels. And I'd still refer to the American economy as mostly free.

But the level public spending is only one of the variables we'd use to measure economic freedom. Heritage Foundation's annual Index of Economic Freedom, IMO, does a pretty good job. They look at 12 factors spread across 4 categories:
  • Rule of Law (property rights, government integrity, judicial effectiveness);
  • Government Size (government spending, tax burden, fiscal health);
  • Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom); and
  • Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom).
They currently rank the US economy as the 25th freest in the world. We do pretty well with everything except government spending and fiscal health.
 
What percentage of capital do governments get to control before you call them socialist?
Woodrow Wilson and FDR were Socialists most likely. Asshole Willson gave us the income tax and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
FDR the new deal and confiscated privately held gold over $100 in value I believe. Well, he tried, I have pre-33 gold coins real Americans squirreled away and you find those with holes in them because people turned them in to jewelry.


That's when government control over our monetary system really got rolling. Big socialist movement in America after Teddy until Eisenhower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and snarlcakes
What would you say are some of the most prominent distinctions between these?
The big one is that social Democrats (read: mainstream European left) generally think they can mostly achieve their goals within a fundamentally capitalist system, while Democratic socialists generally think this should be a temporary stage, and that more effort should be put into ending private ownership of wealth.

In short, social Democrats are basically Gene Rodenberry, while Democratic socialists might look like Gene Rodenberry, but are actually Karl Marx.
 
The big one is that social Democrats (read: mainstream European left) generally think they can mostly achieve their goals within a fundamentally capitalist system, while Democratic socialists generally think this should be a temporary stage, and that more effort should be put into ending private ownership of wealth.

In short, social Democrats are basically Gene Rodenberry, while Democratic socialists might look like Gene Rodenberry, but are actually Karl Marx.

Makes sense. But I guess history would the suggest the tension between these two groups becomes a problem when they each concede they haven't achieved those goals -- and that this favors the view of the latter group who feel vindicated in saying that the only solution is thus to keep going.
 
The big one is that social Democrats (read: mainstream European left) generally think they can mostly achieve their goals within a fundamentally capitalist system, while Democratic socialists generally think this should be a temporary stage, and that more effort should be put into ending private ownership of wealth.

In short, social Democrats are basically Gene Rodenberry, while Democratic socialists might look like Gene Rodenberry, but are actually Karl Marx.
I don't think Marx thought that type of transition could take place you are describing. Marx thought it would just get so bad under capitalism that the protetariat would rise up and that the revolution had to come from there. That would produce a socialist state that would only be in the working class/proletariat's interest and would require a dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent counterrevolutionaries. Then you'd have an interim period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that would eventually lead to a stateless and classless society--communism.

In other words, in your description of the Democratic socialists, it appears they think they can effect a peaceful transition to proletariat control. Marx would never have thought that possible (as London detailed in the Iron Heel). So they are socialists but not Marxists.
 
I don't think Marx thought that type of transition could take place you are describing. Marx thought it would just get so bad under capitalism that the protetariat would rise up and that the revolution had to come from there. That would produce a socialist state that would only be in the working class/proletariat's interest and would require a dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent counterrevolutionaries. Then you'd have an interim period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that would eventually lead to a stateless and classless society--communism.

In other words, in your description of the Democratic socialists, it appears they think they can effect a peaceful transition to proletariat control. Marx would never have thought that possible (as London detailed in the Iron Heel). So they are socialists but not Marxists.
You're right, that was a bad analogy, but I can't think of a good one. My intent was simply to highlight that true democratic socialists are actually socialist, while the real life alternatives we have genuinely are not.
 
Woodrow Wilson and FDR were Socialists most likely. Asshole Willson gave us the income tax and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
FDR the new deal and confiscated privately held gold over $100 in value I believe. Well, he tried, I have pre-33 gold coins real Americans squirreled away and you find those with holes in them because people turned them in to jewelry.


That's when government control over our monetary system really got rolling. Big socialist movement in America after Teddy until Eisenhower.
I don’t know about socialism but they’re certainly the founders of our gov explosion. Wilson is considered the founder of public administration
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT