Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Are Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez redefining socialism in the U.S.?
Polls show that more Americans today define socialism as an ideology of "equality" than one espousing government control of the economy.
- Socialism is shaping up to be 2020's hot-button issue.
- Recent polls show that Republicans and Democrats hold very different definitions of what socialism is and those definitions have changed dramatically over time.
- Politicians will naturally use the definition that speaks to their bases, but lacking an understanding of the opposing side's viewpoint will further partisan divide.
Socialism is shaping up to be 2020's hot-button issue. Proclaimed socialists won big in 2018, notably congresspersons Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar in New York. Senator Bernie Sanders is again running for president on a democratic socialist platform. And a groundswell of support has raised membership in the Democratic Socialists of America from 7,000 to 50,000 in just two years.
In response, President Trump appears to be making anti-socialist sentiment the keystone to his 2020 campaign. As he said in his State of the Union Address:
Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence –- not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.
The argument that will drown your social media is already taking shape: Will Americans allow the government takeover of the private sector or will it maintain the laissez-faire capitalism that was the country's bedrock? (Yes, that's a false choice, but we're talking the internet during an approaching election year. Not reasonable choices.)
But as any philosophy teacher will tell you, if people are going to argue, they need to define their terms or run the risk of talking past each other. As a recent Gallup poll has shown, to the surprise of no one, Americans have not been listening to their philosophy teachers with respect to this particular term.
The terms they are a changin'
Socialism strangles prosperity in this 1909 propaganda poster. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Last year, Gallup asked a random sample of Americans their understanding of the term "socialism." Only 17 percent of respondents defined it as government ownership or control of businesses and the means of production. While this is the classic definition of the term, it was not the number one answer. It wasn't even the second largest response — which was "no opinion," an answer that suggests its own commentary.
Instead, the number one response, shared by nearly a quarter of those surveyed, defined the term as meaning equality and equal rights for all.
This is in stark contrast to 1949, when Gallup first polled Americans on the matter. At the start of the Cold War, a third of Americans connected the term with government ownership of business and production, while just 12 percent argued it meant equality.
For a larger portion of the population, socialism equates to equality, but what then does "equality" mean? That depended greatly on the individual wielding the term. According to the report's authors, "The broad group of responses defining socialism as dealing with "equality" are quite varied -- ranging from views that socialism means controls on incomes and wealth, to a more general conception of equality of opportunity, or equal status as citizens."
Gallup then broke down the numbers along partisan lines. An equal percentage of Republicans viewed socialism as keeping with the Cold War standard as they did with equality (23 percent each). Yet, Democrats favor the equality definition by twice as much (26 percent compared to 13).
And Democrats and Republicans aren't just split on socialism definitionally. They are also split emotionally.
According to another Gallup poll, Democrats more-or-less held a positive view of both socialism and capitalism. Then Donald Trump was elected, and socialism gained a slight yet distinctive edge. But Republicans have overwhelming favored capitalism since at least 2010 (when Gallup began collecting this data set). In 2018, only 16 percent viewed the term with bread-and-rose-colored glasses.
It's worth noting that young voters have a much more favorable view of socialism than their older peers, especially those whose definition and emotional disposition would have ossified during the Cold War, when the term entered our cultural lexicon in force.
Bernie Sanders democratic socialist?
Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign didn't make him President of the United States, but it did return socialism to the fore of American political discourse. But which version of "socialism" is the question. (Photo: Tony Webster/Flickr)
A self-described democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders may be more responsible for the term's resuscitation in American discourse than any other political figure and its recent definitional shift.
Sander's socialism is based squarely on New Deal politics and the Nordic Model. He supports a market economy alongside heavier taxation to support wider, sturdier public provisions. He specifically points to social services like education, childcare, and healthcare as rights in need of government protections and overreaching influence.
"I think that when we look at a modern, democratic, civilized society, you're looking at economic rights in addition to political freedoms," Sanders told MSNBC. "I happen to believe that in the year 2019, with all of the wealth around us, we can create an economy which guarantees health care to all people as a human right, which guarantees education as a right. Economic rights as human rights."
Sanders does a decent job of defining his terms (for a politician, that is); however, his definition of "democratic socialist" does stand in opposition to its standard usage. Democratic socialism calls for a society in which the government owns the means of production and centrally plans the economy. It is classic socialism housed within a democratic framework.
What Sanders advocates for is traditionally labelled "social democracy," a mixed economy system in which a capitalist market that works with a much larger, more robust social safety net and social risk sharing. (It's all in the adjective.)
For Sanders, New Deal substance may be more important than any label. Fair enough. However, both the Foundation for Economic Education, a libertarian think tank, and Jacobin, a democratic socialist magazine, have made the distinction between "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" part of their platforms. As such, it may be a distinction we'll want to keep around — not only to offer much needed clarity to American political discourse but also so these two organizations can finally agree on something.
Muddying the political waters
President Donald Trump during his 2019 State of the Union address, in which he denounced calls to adopt "socialism" in the United States. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Sanders may have brought socialism back into the political fore, but as we saw with Gallup's poll, it has expanded beyond both its original definition and his New Deal outlook. For many it has become synonymous with equality, and we can see in the rhetoric of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Ocasio-Cortez's democratic socialism is a bit of a moving target, and she admits the term houses varying definitions. Sometimes, she identifies it with the Nordic Model. Other times she promotes it as a type of economic democracy. Still other times, it's incredibly broad:
Capitalism, to me, is an ideology of capital. The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we seek and prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas for example like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first.
For the love of capital is the root of all evil. She goes on to say that socialism shouldn't be the fear that government will take over our businesses. It is a bid to equalize the playing field to prevent corporations from taking over our government — suggesting that her definition really falls in line with the equality response in the Gallup poll.
In opposition to Ocasio-Cortez, we have President Trump's use of the socialism. Recently, Trump has tied the word strongly to Venezuela's mismanaged economy. In this way he attacks Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez's view, but ignores the social democracies they draw inspiration from. You know, the countries that haven't mismanage their economies with squandered oil money and a tinpot dictator.
Elsewhere, he seems to be stoking those old Cold War embers by conflating socialism and communism.
"Virtually everywhere socialism or communism has been tried, it has produced suffering, corruption, and decay," Trump told the United Nations General Assembly. "Socialism's thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion, and oppression. All nations of the world should resist socialism and the misery that it brings to everyone."
In a report discussing the misery and oppression of socialism, Trump's economic advisers clump under the same definitional umbrella the failed mixed economy of Venezuela today with past communist economies like those of the USSR and Maoist China. When discussing the Nordic countries, however, the report argues that they "differ significantly from what economists have in mind when they think of socialism."
So, Trump's use of the word not only hearkens back to the classical definition but also sets aside any post-1949 renovations.
The way of words
Much to the exasperation of sticklers and pedants everywhere, words change meaning. It's a natural, unavoidable part of our language, and socialism is a word undergoing such an evolution. Of course, we've been here before.
As linguist John McWhorter notes: "[I]deological positions are mostly fixed but the labels that are affixed to them are subject to change. People can make up a new word, or use an old one in a new way, at any time. However, the things that these words describe often change more slowly, and lend a new word their overtones despite hopes that a new coinage could avoid or transform them."
That quote comes from an article McWhorter wrote for the Atlantic, in which he surveyed the shifting definition of the political label neoliberalism, originally an attempt to separate then middle-of-the-road conservatives from the laissez-faire capitalist liberals of the day. Ironically, neoliberalism is now associated with far-right conservatism while the left adorns the label of liberal.
Socialism is undergoing a similar change today, moving toward polysemy along party lines. For Republicans, the term holds the taint of Cold War animosity and has become a shorthand pejorative. For Democrats, the term is becoming synonymous with a system that endorses fuller equal rights, which can be the Nordic Model, classic socialism, or no specific system at all. It depends on the individual thinker.
Come 2020, whenever we hear a politician speak, we should consider whether they are clearly defining the term, distinguishing between its many variables, or simply using socialism as a political Rorschach test. When we have a discussion online, we need consider whether the "socialism" they use is the same we have in our personal lexicon.
Otherwise, we may find ourselves arguing fiercely over what is ultimately a shared viewpoint.
- What socialism is according to Bernie Sanders - Big Think ›
- In 1988, Bernie Sanders outlined the key problem of media. - Big Think ›
Is information the fifth form of matter?
- Researchers have been trying for over 60 years to detect dark matter.
- There are many theories about it, but none are supported by evidence.
- The mass-energy-information equivalence principle combines several theories to offer an alternative to dark matter.
The “discovery” of dark matter
We can tell how much matter is in the universe by the motions of the stars. In the1920s, physicists attempting to do so discovered a discrepancy and concluded that there must be more matter in the universe than is detectable. How can this be?
In 1933, Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky, while observing the motion of galaxies in the Coma Cluster, began wondering what kept them together. There wasn't enough mass to keep the galaxies from flying apart. Zwicky proposed that some kind of dark matter provided cohesion. But since he had no evidence, his theory was quickly dismissed.
Then, in 1968, astronomer Vera Rubin made a similar discovery. She was studying the Andromeda Galaxy at Kitt Peak Observatory in the mountains of southern Arizona when she came across something that puzzled her. Rubin was examining Andromeda's rotation curve, or the speed at which the stars around the center rotate, and realized that the stars on the outer edges moved at the exact same rate as those at the interior, violating Newton's laws of motion. This meant there was more matter in the galaxy than was detectable. Her punch card readouts are today considered the first evidence of the existence of dark matter.
Many other galaxies were studied throughout the '70s. In each case, the same phenomenon was observed. Today, dark matter is thought to comprise up to 27% of the universe. "Normal" or baryonic matter makes up just 5%. That's the stuff we can detect. Dark energy, which we can't detect either, makes up 68%.
Dark energy is what accounts for the Hubble Constant, or the rate at which the universe is expanding. Dark matter on the other hand, affects how "normal" matter clumps together. It stabilizes galaxy clusters. It also affects the shape of galaxies, their rotation curves, and how stars move within them. Dark matter even affects how galaxies influence one another.
Leading theories on dark matter
NASA writes: 'This graphic represents a slice of the spider-web-like structure of the universe, called the "cosmic web." These great filaments are made largely of dark matter located in the space between galaxies.'
Credit: NASA, ESA, and E. Hallman (University of Colorado, Boulder)
Since the '70s, astronomers and physicists have been unable to identify any evidence of dark matter. One theory is it's all tied up in space-bound objects called MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects). These include black holes, supermassive black holes, brown dwarfs, and neutron stars.
Another theory is that dark matter is made up of a type of non-baryonic matter, called WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles). Baryonic matter is the kind made up of baryons, such as protons and neutrons and everything composed of them, which is anything with an atomic nucleus. Electrons, neutrinos, muons, and tau particles aren't baryons, however, but a class of particles called leptons. Even though the (hypothetical) WIMPS would have ten to a hundred times the mass of a proton, their interactions with normal matter would be weak, making them hard to detect.
Then there are those aforementioned neutrinos. Did you know that giant streams of them pass from the Sun through the Earth each day, without us ever noticing? They're the focus of another theory that says that neutral neutrinos, that only interact with normal matter through gravity, are what dark matter is comprised of. Other candidates include two theoretical particles, the neutral axion and the uncharged photino.
Now, one theoretical physicist posits an even more radical notion. What if dark matter didn't exist at all? Dr. Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth, in the UK, has a hypothesis he calls the mass-energy-information equivalence. It states that information is the fundamental building block of the universe, and it has mass. This accounts for the missing mass within galaxies, thus eliminating the hypothesis of dark matter entirely.
To be clear, the idea that information is an essential building block of the universe isn't new. Classical Information Theory was first posited by Claude Elwood Shannon, the "father of the digital age" in the mid-20th century. The mathematician and engineer, well-known in scientific circles—but not so much outside of them, had a stroke of genius back in 1940. He realized that Boolean algebra coincided perfectly with telephone switching circuits. Soon, he proved that mathematics could be employed to design electrical systems.
Shannon was hired at Bell Labs to figure out how to transfer information over a system of wires. He wrote the bible on using mathematics to set up communication systems, thereby laying the foundation for the digital age. Shannon was also the first to define one unit of information as a bit.
There was perhaps no greater proponent of information theory than another unsung paragon of science, John Archibald Wheeler. Wheeler was part of the Manhattan Project, worked out the "S-Matrix" with Niels Bohr and helped Einstein develop a unified theory of physics. In his later years, he proclaimed, "Everything is information." Then he went about exploring connections between quantum mechanics and information theory.
He also coined the phrase "it from bit" or that every particle in the universe emanates from the information locked inside it. At the Santa Fe Institute in 1989, Wheeler announced that everything, from particles to forces to the fabric of spacetime itself "… derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely … from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits."
Part Einstein, part Landauer
Vopson takes this notion one step further. He says that not only is information the essential unit of the universe but also that it is energy and has mass. To support this claim, he unifies and coordinates special relativity with the Landauer Principle. The latter is named after Rolf Landauer. In 1961, he predicted that erasing even one bit of information would release a tiny amount of heat, a figure which he calculated. Landauer said this proves information is more than just a mathematical quantity. This connects information to energy. Through experimental testing over the years, the Landauer Principle has held up.
Vopson says, "He [Landauer] first identified the link between thermodynamics and information by postulating that logical irreversibility of a computational process implies physical irreversibility." This indicates that information is physical, Vopson says, and demonstrates the link between information theory and thermodynamics.
In Vopson's theory, information, once created has "finite and quantifiable mass." It so far applies only to digital systems, but could very well apply to analogue and biological ones too, and even quantum or relativistic-moving systems. "Relativity and quantum mechanics are possible future directions of the mass-energy-information equivalence principle," he says.
In the paper published in the journal AIP Advances, Vopson outlines the mathematical basis for his hypothesis. "I am the first to propose the mechanism and the physics by which information acquires mass," he said, "as well as to formulate this powerful principle and to propose a possible experiment to test it."
The fifth state of matter
To measure the mass of digital information, you start with an empty data storage device. Next, you measure its total mass with a highly sensitive measuring apparatus. Then, you fill it and determine its mass. Next, you erase one file and evaluate it again. The trouble is, the "ultra-accurate mass measurement" device the paper describes doesn't exist yet. This would be an interferometer, something similar to LIGO. Or perhaps an ultrasensitive weighing machine akin to a Kibble balance.
"Currently, I am in the process of applying for a small grant, with the main objective of designing such an experiment, followed by calculations to check if detection of these small mass changes is even possible," Vopson says. "Assuming the grant is successful and the estimates are positive, then a larger international consortium could be formed to undertake the construction of the instrument." He added, "This is not a workbench laboratory experiment, and it would most likely be a large and costly facility." If eventually proved correct, Vopson will have discovered the fifth form of matter.
So, what's the connection to dark matter? Vopson says, "M.P. Gough published an article in 2008 in which he worked out … the number of bits of information that the visible universe would contain to make up all the missing dark matter. It appears that my estimates of information bit content of the universe are very close to his estimates."
The experience of life flashing before one's eyes has been reported for well over a century, but where's the science behind it?
At the age of 16, when Tony Kofi was an apprentice builder living in Nottingham, he fell from the third story of a building. Time seemed to slow down massively, and he saw a complex series of images flash before his eyes.
As he described it, “In my mind's eye I saw many, many things: children that I hadn't even had yet, friends that I had never seen but are now my friends. The thing that really stuck in my mind was playing an instrument". Then Tony landed on his head and lost consciousness.
When he came to at the hospital, he felt like a different person and didn't want to return to his previous life. Over the following weeks, the images kept flashing back into his mind. He felt that he was “being shown something" and that the images represented his future.
Later, Tony saw a picture of a saxophone and recognized it as the instrument he'd seen himself playing. He used his compensation money from the accident to buy one. Now, Tony Kofi is one of the UK's most successful jazz musicians, having won the BBC Jazz awards twice, in 2005 and 2008.
Though Tony's belief that he saw into his future is uncommon, it's by no means uncommon for people to report witnessing multiple scenes from their past during split-second emergency situations. After all, this is where the phrase “my life flashed before my eyes" comes from.
But what explains this phenomenon? Psychologists have proposed a number of explanations, but I'd argue the key to understanding Tony's experience lies in a different interpretation of time itself.
When life flashes before our eyes
The experience of life flashing before one's eyes has been reported for well over a century. In 1892, a Swiss geologist named Albert Heim fell from a precipice while mountain climbing. In his account of the fall, he wrote is was “as if on a distant stage, my whole past life [was] playing itself out in numerous scenes".
More recently, in July 2005, a young woman called Gill Hicks was sitting near one of the bombs that exploded on the London Underground. In the minutes after the accident, she hovered on the brink of death where, as she describes it: “my life was flashing before my eyes, flickering through every scene, every happy and sad moment, everything I have ever done, said, experienced".
In some cases, people don't see a review of their whole lives, but a series of past experiences and events that have special significance to them.
Explaining life reviews
Perhaps surprisingly, given how common it is, the “life review experience" has been studied very little. A handful of theories have been put forward, but they're understandably tentative and rather vague.
For example, a group of Israeli researchers suggested in 2017 that our life events may exist as a continuum in our minds, and may come to the forefront in extreme conditions of psychological and physiological stress.
Another theory is that, when we're close to death, our memories suddenly “unload" themselves, like the contents of a skip being dumped. This could be related to “cortical disinhibition" – a breaking down of the normal regulatory processes of the brain – in highly stressful or dangerous situations, causing a “cascade" of mental impressions.
But the life review is usually reported as a serene and ordered experience, completely unlike the kind of chaotic cascade of experiences associated with cortical disinhibition. And none of these theories explain how it's possible for such a vast amount of information – in many cases, all the events of a person's life – to manifest themselves in a period of a few seconds, and often far less.
Thinking in 'spatial' time
An alternative explanation is to think of time in a “spatial" sense. Our commonsense view of time is as an arrow that moves from the past through the present towards the future, in which we only have direct access to the present. But modern physics has cast doubt on this simple linear view of time.
Indeed, since Einstein's theory of relativity, some physicists have adopted a “spatial" view of time. They argue we live in a static “block universe" in which time is spread out in a kind of panorama where the past, the present and the future co-exist simultaneously.
The modern physicist Carlo Rovelli – author of the best-selling The Order of Time – also holds the view that linear time doesn't exist as a universal fact. This idea reflects the view of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who argued that time is not an objectively real phenomenon, but a construct of the human mind.
This could explain why some people are able to review the events of their whole lives in an instant. A good deal of previous research – including my own – has suggested that our normal perception of time is simply a product of our normal state of consciousness.
In many altered states of consciousness, time slows down so dramatically that seconds seem to stretch out into minutes. This is a common feature of emergency situations, as well as states of deep meditation, experiences on psychedelic drugs and when athletes are “in the zone".
The limits of understanding
But what about Tony Kofi's apparent visions of his future? Did he really glimpse scenes from his future life? Did he see himself playing the saxophone because somehow his future as a musician was already established?
There are obviously some mundane interpretations of Tony's experience. Perhaps, for instance, he became a saxophone player simply because he saw himself playing it in his vision. But I don't think it's impossible that Tony did glimpse future events.
If time really does exist in a spatial sense – and if it's true that time is a construct of the human mind – then perhaps in some way future events may already be present, just as past events are still present.
Admittedly, this is very difficult to make sense of. But why should everything make sense to us? As I have suggested in a recent book, there must be some aspects of reality that are beyond our comprehension. After all, we're just animals, with a limited awareness of reality. And perhaps more than any other phenomenon, this is especially true of time.
Might as well face it, you're addicted to love.
- Many writers have commented on the addictive qualities of love. Science agrees.
- The reward system of the brain reacts similarly to both love and drugs
- Someday, it might be possible to treat "love addiction."
Since people started writing, they've written about love. The oldest love poem known dates back to the 21st century BCE. For most of that time, writers also apparently have been of two (or more) minds about it, announcing that love can be painful, impossible to quit, or even addictive — while also mentioning how nice it is.
The idea of love as an addiction is one that is both familiar and unsettling. Surely it can't be the case that our mutual love with our partner — a thing that can produce euphoria, consumes a great deal of our time, and which we fear losing — can be compared to a drug habit? But indeed, many scientists have turned their attention to the idea of "love addiction" and how your brain on drugs might resemble your brain in love.
Love and other drugs
In a 2017 article published in the journal Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, a team of neuroethicists considered the idea that love is addicting and held the idea up to science for scrutiny.
They point out that the leading model of addiction rests on the notion of a drug causing the brain to release an unnatural level of reward chemicals, such as dopamine, effectively hijacking the brain's reward system. This phenomenon isn't strictly limited to drugs, though they are more effective at this process than other things. Rats can get a similar rush from sugar as from cocaine, and they can have terrible withdrawal symptoms when the sugar crash kicks in.
On the structural level, there is a fair amount of overlap between the parts of the brain that handle love and pair-bonding and the parts that deal with addiction and reward processing. When inside an MRI machine and asked to think about the person they love romantically, the reward centers of people's brains light up like Broadway.
Love as an addiction
These facts lead the authors to consider two ideas, dubbed the "narrow" and "broad" views of love as an addiction.
The narrow view holds that addiction is the result of abnormal brain processes that simply don't exist in non-addicts. Under this paradigm, "food-seeking or love-seeking behaviors are not truly the result of addiction, no matter how addiction-like they may outwardly appear." It could be that abnormal processes cause the brain's reward system to misfire when exposed to love and to react to it excessively.
If this model is accurate, love addiction would be a rare thing — one study puts it around five to ten percent of the population — but could be considered a disorder similar to others and caused by faulty wiring in the brain. As with other addictions, this malfunction of the reward system could lead to an inability to fully live a typical life, difficulty having healthy relationships, and a number of other negative consequences.
The broad view looks at addiction differently, perhaps even radically.
It begins with the idea that addiction exists on a spectrum of motivations. All of our appetites, including those for food and water, exist on this spectrum and activate similar parts of the brain when satisfied. We can have appetites for anything that taps into our reward system, including food, gambling, sex, drugs, and love. For most people most of the time, our appetites are fairly temperate, if recurring. I might be slightly "addicted" to food — I do need some a few times per day — but that "addiction" doesn't have any negative effects on my health.
An appetite for cocaine, however, is rarely temperate and usually dangerous. Likewise, a person's appetite for love could reach addiction levels, and a person could be considered "hooked" on relationships (or on a particular person). This would put love addiction at the extreme end of the spectrum.
None of this is to say that the authors think that love is bad for you just because it can resemble an addiction. Love addiction is not the same as cocaine addiction at the neurological level: important differences, like how long it takes for the desire for another "hit" to occur, do exist. Rather, the authors see this as an opportunity to reconsider our approach to addiction in general and to think about how we can help the heartsick when they just can't seem to get over their last relationship.
Is "love addiction" a treatable disorder?
Hypothetically, a neurological basis for an addiction to love could point toward interventions that "correct" for it. If the narrow view of addiction is accurate, perhaps some people will be able to seek treatment for love addiction in the same way that others seek help to quit smoking. If the broad view of addiction is correct, the treatment of love addiction would be unlikely as it may be difficult to properly identify where the cutoff of acceptability on a spectrum should be.
Either way, since love is generally held in high regard by all cultures and doesn't quite seem to be in the same category as a bad cocaine habit in terms of social undesirability, the authors doubt we'll be treating anyone for "love addiction" anytime soon.
A brief passage from a recent UN report describes what could be the first-known case of an autonomous weapon, powered by artificial intelligence, killing in the battlefield.