Latest news with #Socialism
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Nordic Socialism: The Path Toward a Democratic Economy – A hopeful, practical blueprint for democratic socialism
Nordic Socialism: the path toward a democratic economy Author : Pelle Dragsted ISBN-13 : 978-0299353605 Publisher : University of Wisconsin Press Guideline Price : £21.99 Pelle Dragsted is a Danish opposition MP with – and chief spokesperson of – the Red-Green Alliance. His Nordic Socialism: The Path Toward a Democratic Economy is a rousing invitation to reimagine the possibilities of socialism – neither as utopian dream nor Soviet nostalgia, but a successful living example embedded in and underpinning the Nordic model. For Dragsted, the question isn't whether socialism is feasible; it's whether Denmark can go further and build on its existing institutions of economic democracy. For Irish readers enamoured of the Nordic model, a key question is which elements of this ambitious framework can usefully be emulated. The central premise of Nordic Socialism is that the Nordic countries – long admired for their comprehensive welfare states – are not merely kinder versions of capitalism. They are hybrid economies, with significant portions already organised around socialist principles: public ownership, co-ops, mutual banks, and social wealth funds. Dragsted posits that this is not an accident of history, but a democratic tradition worth deepening. Specifically, he proposes 10 clear reforms as a roadmap to expanding worker ownership, democratising investment, limiting the power of oligarchic capital and reframing the debate around economic democracy. READ MORE The author's view of the Nordic countries isn't rose-tinted. He acknowledges their contradictions, their concessions to neoliberalism, and the real limits of what national governments can do under global capitalism. But he also insists that despair is not strategy. The challenge, as he sees it, is to chip away at the dominance of market fundamentalism – not by overthrowing the system, but by expanding the spaces where democracy already governs economic life. [ The World of the Cold War by Vladislav Zubok: Three decades on, echoes remain in today's turbulent world Opens in new window ] Nordic Socialism may be written with a Danish readership in mind, but its relevance extends beyond Scandinavia. For anyone interested in building a fairer, freer future – without waiting for a revolution – it's essential reading. For the Irish reader there may be a wistful element of 'paradise lost' in our democratic economic institutions that have vanished or are diminished: our building societies have been demutualised; our public enterprises have been privatised; our biggest co-operatives have gone corporate; our pension fund was raided to bail out the banks. Attempts to build 'Gaelic socialism' could mine this rich seam of our economic history. Verdict: a hopeful, practical blueprint for democratic socialism in the 21st century. Clear-eyed and grounded in lived experience.
Wall Street Journal
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Chuck Schumer's Mamdani Test
Will Chuck Schumer endorse Zohran Mamdani for mayor of New York? That's a straightforward question, but the Senator from New York hasn't given a straightforward answer. Mr. Schumer is the Democratic Party's Senate leader, and Mr. Mamdani is the Democratic Party's candidate for mayor. Then again, Mr. Mamdani is a socialist who spoke as an Assemblyman of 'seizing the means of production' and blamed Israel, not Hamas, on Oct. 8, 2023.
New Statesman
09-07-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
From the archive: Enoch and after
Photo by David Reed Archive / Alamy Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech opposed immigration and the Race Relations Bill. For it, Edward Heath dismissed him from the shadow cabinet. The NS political columnist Alan Watkins warned against Powell's menace as an extra-parliamentary demagogue. The great Bishop Butler was in the habit of walking in his garden with a companion and musing upon the possibility of madness suddenly striking the politicians of his time. Today madness is very much in the political air. Mr Enoch Powell says that we are all mad. Some of Mr Powell's former colleagues in the shadow cabinet, for their part, claim that The word should more properly be used of Mr Powell. 'Mad' is, to be sure, an unsubtle epithet, and of no very precise scientific meaning. Clearly there is a sense in which Mr Powell is as sane as anybody. There is another sense in which he is a politically unbalanced and (to use one of his own favourite adjectives) dangerous man. There is, for a start, the matter of Mr Powell's appearance. I am sorry if this seems tasteless, but I am consoled by the knowledge that I am not the only person to have been guilty of this particular error over the past few days. Those staring eyes, that tight, occasionally twitching white mask of a face: can the possessor of these characteristics, one wonders, be entirely balanced? But this is not the only or the most important aspect to Mr Powell. Let us go back over his speeches of the past four or five years. Most of them – and here they differ from last Saturday's – are distinguished by wit, clarity, a certain elegance of expression. They are among the few contemporary political speeches that bear re-reading. In all speaking or writing, however, there comes a point at which a certain superficial lucidity is not an aid to thought but a barrier. There is a temptation to make the facts or the emotions fit the construction of a sentence, the shape of a speech. This is a temptation to which Mr Powell continually succumbs. 'I strive to be brief,' said Horace, 'and become obscure': but in Mr Powell's case the distortions that occur are not solely or even mainly due to a striving after literary effect. Mr. Powell practises a conscious political obscurantism. In 1963-4, it will be remembered, he made a succession of speeches about Conservatism and Socialism. These speeches purported to describe the differences not between theories but between real political parties. Even in 1963-4, when socialist hopes for Mr Harold Wilson were rather higher than they are today, Mr Powell's observations bore only the slightest relation to political fact. I remember asking him how he justified them. 'Well,' he replied (or words to this effect), 'one of the best ways of bringing something about is to pretend that it has actually happened.' Now, it is arguable that this practice, though not perhaps very exalted, is common enough among politicians and publicists. But Mr Powell's liking for antithesis and exaggeration goes further than this. He refuses to qualify his thoughts or admit to doubt because his method of reasoning about politics does not permit him to do so. In some ways this is an attractive characteristic. We all like certainty, or the appearance of certainty. Indeed – and this is not such a digression as may appear – there Is a persuasive though ignorant criticism of political writing which goes something as follows: there are far too many ifs and buts and on the one hands and on the others; back, therefore,, to the models of the 17th and 18th centuries. But nearly all this writing, as anyone who has actually read it knows, is based on one or more of the following elements: appeals to scriptural authority; attacks on personalities; simple and syllogistic reasoning from dubious premises. In his speeches and writings Mr Powell makes particular use of the latter two elements. He begins with an apparently indisputable statement and builds upon it an inverted pyramid of nonsense. He is, in the true sense, a political primitive. Certainly it is not inevitable that a politician who reasons in this fashion should think of himself as a Messiah. But dogmatism and messianism reinforce each other wonderfully. Mr Powell's doctrinal certainty marches hand in hand with the belief that he has been sent by providence to redeem the times. In addition Mr Powell holds the view, as Gladstone and Cripps did before him, that what is personally convenient for him also happens, by remarkable coincidence, to correspond to the will of the Almighty. I give two examples of this latter characteristic. The first concerns incomes policy. Until he left the Cabinet in 1963, Mr Powell supported, and indeed played a part in the formulation of, Mr Reginald Maudling's incomes policy. When he left the cabinet he attacked the policy, without feeling that he was being at all inconsistent. My second example brings us to the events of this week. It was Mr Powell, it seems, who suggested the words 'on balance' in the Opposition's so-called reasoned amendment. His speech on Saturday, however, hardly suggested much balance about anything. And the sequence of events seems to have been roughly as follows. Mr Powell deliberately set out to provoke Mr Edward Heath. Mr Heath was more hurt and injured than angry. On Sunday morning he telephoned most members of the Shadow Cabinet. The consensus was that 'things have gone far enough'. Mr Heath is anxious to make clear that at no point did he ask the views of his colleagues about whether he ought to dismiss Mr Powell. Nor, at this stage, did anyone threaten to resign if Mr Powell stayed in the Shadow Cabinet. There is no reason substantially to question this version; though Mr Heath, in an attempt to emphasise his own leadership, is possibly insisting on it too strenuously. Anyway, by midday or thereabouts, Mr Heath had made up his mind to sack Enoch, and shortly after he telephoned his Chief Whip, Mr William Whitelaw, and asked him to come to London. Mr Whitelaw, having driven from the furthest north. arrived at about eight, and Mr Powell was duly dismissed. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe One Labour MP, on hearing the news, sent a telegram of congratulation to Mr Heath. And, indeed, Mr Heath deserved his telegram. On Sunday night it would have been possible to argue that he was, with some courage, risking a split in the party in the House of Commons. Having alienated his left wing by refusing to support the Race Relations Bill, he was now, it must have been thought, provoking his right wing by sacking Mr Powell. But things did not work out quite like this. As far as the Conservative Party in Parliament was concerned, the dismissal of Mr Powell was, in an odd way, a steadying influence. Indeed if it had not been for Mr Powell's weekend speech, Tuesday's debate would have been a far more boisterous occasion. In the event both sides seemed to feel that they had to be moderate, to make amends for what one of their number had said. This was particularly true of Mr Quintin Hogg who, without a note, gave one of the greatest parliamentary performances I have ever heard. Mr Hogg's outstanding characteristic is his magnanimity. He was generous even to Mr Powell, though he had sharp things to say. One felt that he was speaking for the whole House. And this, curiously, is what is so disturbing about the present situation. While Mr Hogg was speaking for the House, the dockers were demonstrating for Mr Powell. For years and years Mr Powell has been making speeches on defence and economic policy. The speeches were widely reported, certainly, but they struck no response from the public at large. He has now, quite deliberately, decided to exploit the one issue on which many people are scarcely rational. And he has appeared to put himself not only outside his party but outside the system of parliamentary government. He has contrived to tie racism to the disillusion with party politics. He is now, in fact, the most dangerous type of demagogue. As such he is a threat to Mr Heath, not from within the parliamentary party, but from outside it. There was a time, not so long ago, when Mr Powell's contributions to politics could be regarded (by others, if not by himself) as an intellectual diversion. No longer. And the parallel that occurs to me is not Sir Oswald Mosley or Governor Wallace. It is Senator Joe McCarthy. Like McCarthy, Mr Powell exploits prejudice; as with McCarthy, many ordinary people think he is on their side. The main difference is that Mr Powell is more intelligent. [See also: From the archive: Reality: a charter for avoidance] Related
Time of India
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Zohran Mamdani says he's a socialist; Trump calls him a ‘communist lunatic' – What's the difference?
Zohran Kwame Mamdani seems to be sticking to the news – for all the relevant reasons. However, at this point, the 33-year-old member of the New York State Assembly and the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor is under the microscope – because the US President doesn't seem to get over his win in the Primary Election and move on from his milestone victory. And this 'obsession' has ignited an intense debate. Mamdani proudly identifies as a democratic socialist. He supports and advocates for policies like rent freezes, fare-free buses, publicly owned grocery stores, universal childcare, and higher taxes on the wealthy – key pointers of the idea of social democracy. But Donald Trump doesn't seem to agree with Mamdani's self-proclamation – at all. Rather, the US President has repeatedly slammed Mamdani as a '100% Communist Lunatic,' calling him a 'pure communist' and threatening to withhold federal funding or even deploy the federal government if Mamdani is elected. This stark contrast raises a critical question: What's the real difference between socialism and communism, and what's at stake in this high-stakes rhetorical battle over New York's next mayor? Moreover, these clashing narratives – between democratic socialism and alleged communism – raise some more vital questions: What exactly distinguishes the two ideologies? And why is Trump labeling Mamdani a communist when his policies are arguably far more moderate? Let's unpack. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Understanding Democratic Socialism Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that combines democratic governance with a commitment to social ownership or regulation of key sectors. In Mamdani's case, his focus is on expanding public services and reducing inequality, not dismantling the private economy. Key components include: Democratic governance: Preserving elections, multi-party systems, and political freedoms. Targeted public ownership or subsidization: Rent regulation, municipal grocery stores, public transit, childcare. Mixed economy: Encouraging private enterprise alongside robust public investment. Progressive taxation: Increasing revenue from corporations and millionaires to fund social programs. Mamdani sees democratic socialism as a path toward 'redistributed wealth and power…where necessities of life are rights.' His alignment with figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez places him squarely in the tradition of modern US democratic socialism, which emphasizes incremental reforms through democratic institutions. What is Communism, and why Mamdani isn't it Communism, as historically practiced in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and other one-party states, involves: Abolition of private property and transfer of all means of production to the state. Centralized, planned economy with no role for markets. Authoritarian, single-party rule, often repressing dissent. Mamdani is conspicuously not advocating any of these. To put it in a list, he does not support : Seizing private businesses or banning markets. Imposing a single-party regime or abolishing elections. Forcing price controls beyond regulated rents or pilot grocery stores. Anna Grzymala-Busse, Stanford University professor of international studies, wrote in an email to PolitiFact, as reported by Al Jazeera: 'Communism involves a centrally planned economy, with no market forces. Prices and quantities are set by a central government authority. There is no democratic political competition, and instead a single party rules the country,' clarifying that, Mamdani, 'is not calling for any of this. ' Democratic socialists explicitly reject authoritarianism and nationalization of the entire industry – components at the heart of classic communism. What's Mamdani's actual agenda in NYC Mamdani's policy platform prioritizes affordability and equity: Rent freezes and expanded rent stability, combating displacement. Fare-free public transit, echoing successful models like Kansas municipal buses. City-owned grocery pilots, to ensure fair access, intended to supplement, not replace, private grocery chains. Universal childcare, with state-funded support and family "baby baskets." Higher taxes on millionaires and corporations to support public programs. Progressive police reform, focusing on community policing and social services. These policy goals fall squarely within the tradition of European social democracy, and none of these proposals involves overturning fundamental capitalist structures or erasing private property – hallmarks of communism. Trump's Rhetoric: Scare tactics vs. substance Trump's attacks on Mamdani have been both forceful and persistent. He has labeled Mamdani a 'communist,' 'pure communist,' 'communist nutjob,' and '100% communist lunatic' across various platforms. Trump has threatened to withhold federal funds or stage federal takeovers if Mamdani pursues progressive policies. He has even suggested that Mamdani could face arrest, deportation, or have his citizenship stripped, despite being a naturalized citizen since 2018. These attacks reflect classic 'red-baiting,' which leverages fear of 'communism' to undermine dissenting views and portray them as extreme or authoritarian. In this way, Trump's approach is both inaccurate and misleading, yet strategic: it stirs fear, diverts attention from substantive policy discussions, and rallies conservative voters. The broader implications This conflict is about more than just labels; it reveals deeper dynamics in politics: Public confusion: Citizens may misinterpret real policy intentions, fearing authoritarian control instead of seeing efforts for increased services. Fear of socialism: Conservatives often equate democratic socialism with historical communism to incite alarm. This fear-mongering can enable political opponents to block policy reforms by branding them as 'communist.' Political signaling and polarization: Trump's rhetoric resonates with voters who are uneasy about so-called 'radical left' ideas. Labeling Mamdani as a communist may deepen societal divisions and distract from pressing issues such as housing and transit affordability. Democratic legitimacy: Attacking Mamdani's citizenship and threatening federal funds raises concerns among Democrats about undermining local self-governance. For NYC voters, Mamdani's campaign emphasizes trust in public provision for basic needs, while Trump's response exacerbates polarization and raises constitutional concerns regarding federal overreach. Clarity over confusion Understanding the substantive differences between these ideologies is crucial because: Voters deserve accurate information to evaluate policies based on their merits rather than on mischaracterizations. Democratic socialism seeks to reform rather than replace capitalism, advocating for public programs alongside private enterprise. Communism aims to completely overthrow capitalism, representing a radical and historically authoritarian transformation. Political discourse benefits from precise terminology, which ensures accountability and fosters constructive debate. Labeling Mamdani as a communist dilutes the meaning of both ideologies and fuels reactionary political strategies, for accurate ideological framing helps preserve a healthy democratic process. To sum it up… At its heart, this debate is illustrative of a larger battle over public understanding, democratic resilience, and ideological framing in American politics. Zohran Mamdani 's identification as a democratic socialist – championing expanded public services, affordability, and progressive taxation – differs sharply from communism, which entails total state control, abolishment of markets, and one-party rule. Trump's description of Mamdani as a 'communist lunatic' reflects a longstanding strategy of political hyperbole and fearmongering, not an accurate ideological assessment. Understanding these distinctions allows voters to engage critically with both policy substance and political rhetoric, while ensuring that democracy remains informed, not inflamed. 'Lunatic, Terrible-Looking': Trump Attacks NYC Muslim Mayor Hopeful Zohran Mamdani | Watch
Washington Post
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Virginia politicians look outside the state for political punching bags
RICHMOND — Republicans running for statewide office in Virginia have a couple of surefire ways to rile up crowds at campaign stops: mention New York City's mayoral race or Maryland's budget woes. 'New York … has nominated a socialist!' GOP gubernatorial nominee Winsome Earle-Sears thundered last week at a rally in Vienna, drawing a cascade of boos directed at New York Democrat Zohran Mamdani. 'A socialist!' she repeated, as the jeers grew louder.
