from the world's big
What socialism really is—and what it isn't
We hear the word 'socialism' a lot. What does it mean, exactly?
If you've been reading the news in the last few months or seen a few articles lately, you might have noticed that socialism is currently enjoying a surge in popularity in the United States. According to Gallup polling, a majority of young people now have a favorable view of socialism.
A majority of Democrats like socialism, while just under half like capitalism. Several high-profile socialist candidates, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have attracted national attention and socialist organizations continue to grow in popularity.
One problem that this causes is a misuse of the word 'socialism'. Like many other terms, it has been overused, purposefully misused, and accidentally over-applied to the point where it is nearly meaningless. Toss in a few red scares and decades of red-baiting in this country and you get an idea of socialism that is distorted.
So to help out, here are a few definitions you might find useful during your next political debate.
Karl Marx, the founder of a school of socialist thought, as depicted in Hungary. All Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are Marxists. (ATTILA KISBENEDEK/AFP/Getty Images)
In the broadest possible sense, socialism is an economic system where the means of production are socially owned. The “means of production" being the raw materials, factories, and machines used to make goods.
This is as opposed to capitalism, where the means of production are privately owned.
What “socially owned" means is another question entirely. The most popular answer in the 20th century was "owned by the government"; this is called state socialism. There are a variety of other approaches, some of which don't include the state at all. These often involve cooperatives, worker-owned businesses, or communes.
Democratic socialist Eugene Debs campaigns for president. He ran five times and won 6% of the vote in 1912. Bernie Sanders keeps a plaque honoring him in his Senate office. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)
Democratic socialism is the model that is currently getting the most attention. It calls for the means of production to be socially owned, and that this ownership incorporates large amounts of democratic management. This typically includes things like worker's cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises that both workers and consumers help manage.
Many groups that follow this ideology, like the Labour Party in the U.K., have supported state socialism run by an elected government as well.
As the name suggests, this model demands political democracy and opposes authoritarian socialist movements. It also explicitly rejects the Soviet system of governance and economics.
People who currently subscribe to this ideology include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in America and Jeremy Corbyn in the U.K. The Democratic Socialists of America are currently the most famous democratic socialist organization in the United States.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, two prominent social democrats. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
Social democracy is a system that leaves the means of production in private hands but assures that regulations, some public control of the economy, and extensive entitlements exist to keep everybody at a decent standard of living. This is often identified with the Nordic model, but most western democracies have had social democratic governments at some point in the last century.
This system is technically a capitalist one since the means of production are still privately owned. In the United States, however, we often refer to this as “socialism" anyway. This is why Scandinavian economists and officials keep correcting us when we call their counties socialist.
Since he has no interest in “seizing the means of production" this is what Bernie Sanders actually is. Most progressives in the United States, such as Elizabeth Warren, are social democrats in practice. In the same way, progressive organizations are essentially social democratic ones.
National Socialists, also called Nazis. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
This is the Nazi ideology. The 'national' part designates it as separate from international socialism, which hoped to unite the global working class. Democratic socialist movements are typically international in this way, making Nazism opposed to them.
The socialism part is complicated. The original Nazi party platform called for nationalization, social welfare programs, land reform, a guaranteed standard of living, and profit sharing. Official rhetoric blamed supposedly Jewish dominated big business for the Great Depression.
As soon as the Nazis were in power, they decided they liked big business, dissolved trade unions, reduced social welfare, tied farmers to the land, and privatized parts of the economy. Regulations were stepped up to assure that companies followed government programs, but on the whole, the anti-capitalist elements of the party platform were forgotten.
The Nazis were also anti-communist because of their opposition to equality, class conflict, and social ownership of the means of production. They crushed the left at the first chance they got.
This combination of ideas may seem strange, but fascism is a peculiar ideology that allows for odd combinations of ideas. Nazism is typically viewed not as a socialist ideology but as a fascist one, and people claiming that the democratic socialists endorse the same policies as Nazis are mistaken.
People who support this ideology are Nazis, and no major American political figure currently is one.
Supporters of the Russian Communist Party mark the anniversary of Stalin's death. (MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/Getty Images)
Communism is two things. The word is most commonly used to refer to the political ideology associated with the USSR. That ideology, officially called Marxism-Leninism, favors a dictatorship of the proletariat, state control of the economy, and a society organized toward removing the remnants of capitalism.
There are, however, a hundred strains of communism and a thousand significant figures who would protest this definition of communism. These people argue that what the USSR did wasn't really communism, that everything was great until Stalin showed up, or even that Russia didn't go far enough.
Communism is also the name for a hypothetical society that comes after the final socialist revolution when classes, the state, and money have faded away. Communist parties and governments are, at least in theory, working to create this society.
All communists are socialists since they want social ownership of means of production, but not all socialists are communists since they might not support the Soviet model or think the utopian society is possible. This distinction is important but often missed.
No major American political figures are communists, but there are a slew of small communist organizations.
Higher education faces challenges that are unlike any other industry. What path will ASU, and universities like ASU, take in a post-COVID world?
- Everywhere you turn, the idea that coronavirus has brought on a "new normal" is present and true. But for higher education, COVID-19 exposes a long list of pernicious old problems more than it presents new problems.
- It was widely known, yet ignored, that digital instruction must be embraced. When combined with traditional, in-person teaching, it can enhance student learning outcomes at scale.
- COVID-19 has forced institutions to understand that far too many higher education outcomes are determined by a student's family income, and in the context of COVID-19 this means that lower-income students, first-generation students and students of color will be disproportionately afflicted.
What conditions of the new normal were already appreciated widely?<p>First, we understand that higher education is unique among industries. Some industries are governed by markets. Others are run by governments. Most operate under the influence of both markets and governments. And then there's higher education. Higher education as an "industry" involves public, private, and for-profit universities operating at small, medium, large, and now massive scales. Some higher education industry actors are intense specialists; others are adept generalists. Some are fantastically wealthy; others are tragically poor. Some are embedded in large cities; others are carefully situated near farms and frontiers.</p> <p>These differences demonstrate just some of the complexities that shape higher education. Still, we understand that change in the industry is underway, and we must be active in directing it. Yet because of higher education's unique (and sometimes vexing) operational and structural conditions, many of the lessons from change management and the science of industrial transformation are only applicable in limited or highly modified ways. For evidence of this, one can look at various perspectives, including those that we have offered, on such topics as <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/rethinking-higher-education/lessons-disruption" target="_blank">disruption</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/education/learning/education-technology.html" target="_blank">technology management</a>, and so-called "<a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/media/Excerpt_IHESpecialReport_Growing-Role-of-Mergers-in-Higher-Ed.pdf" target="_blank">mergers and acquisitions</a>" in higher education. In each of these spaces, the "market forces" and "market rules" for higher education are different than they are in business, or even in government. This has always been the case and it is made more obvious by COVID-19.</p> <p>Second, with so much excitement about innovation in higher education, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that students are—and should remain—the core cause for innovation. Higher education's capacity to absorb new ideas is strong. But the ideas that endure are those designed to benefit students, and therefore society. This is important to remember because not all innovations are designed with students in mind. The recent history of innovation in higher education includes several cautionary tales of what can happen when institutional interests—or worse, <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/09/apollos-new-owners-seek-fresh-start-beleaguered-company" target="_blank">shareholder</a> interests—are placed above student well-being.</p>
Photo: Getty Images<p>Third, it is abundantly apparent that universities must leverage technology to increase educational quality and access. The rapid shift to delivering an education that complies with social distancing guidelines speaks volumes about the adaptability of higher education institutions, but this transition has also posed unique difficulties for colleges and universities that had been slow to adopt digital education. The last decade has shown that online education, implemented effectively, can meet or even surpass the quality of in-person <a href="https://link-springer-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/article/10.1007/s10639-019-10027-z" target="_blank">instruction</a>.</p><p>Digital instruction, broadly defined, leverages online capabilities and integrates adaptive learning methodologies, predictive analytics, and innovations in instructional design to enable increased student engagement, personalized learning experiences, and improved learning outcomes. The ability of these technologies to transcend geographic barriers and to shrink the marginal cost of educating additional students makes them essential for delivering education at scale.</p><p>As a bonus, and it is no small thing given that they are the core cause for innovation, students embrace and enjoy digital instruction. It is their preference to learn in a format that leverages technology. This should not be a surprise; it is now how we live in all facets of life.</p><p>Still, we have only barely begun to conceive of the impact digital education will have. For example, emerging virtual and augmented reality technologies that facilitate interactive, hands-on learning will transform the way that learners acquire and apply new knowledge. Technology-enabled learning cannot replace the traditional college experience or ensure the survival of any specific college, but it can enhance student learning outcomes at scale. This has always been the case, and it is made more obvious by COVID-19.</p>
What conditions of the new normal were emerging suspicions?<p>Our collective thinking about the role of institutional or university-to-university collaboration and networking has benefitted from a new clarity in light of COVID-19. We now recognize more than ever that colleges and universities must work together to ensure that the American higher education system is resilient and sufficiently robust to meet the needs of students and their families.</p> <p>In recent weeks, various commentators have suggested that higher education will face a wave of institutional <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/scott-galloway-predicts-colleges-will-close-due-to-pandemic-2020-5" target="_blank">closures</a> and consolidations and that large institutions with significant online instruction capacity will become dominant.</p> <p>While ASU is the largest public university in the United States by enrollment and among the most well-equipped in online education, we strongly oppose "let them fail" mindsets. The strength of American higher education relies on its institutional diversity, and on the ability of colleges and universities to meet the needs of their local communities and educate local students. The needs of learners are highly individualized, demanding a wide range of options to accommodate the aspirations and learning styles of every kind of student. Education will become less relevant and meaningful to students, and less responsive to local needs, if institutions of higher learning are allowed to fail. </p> <p>Preventing this outcome demands that colleges and universities work together to establish greater capacity for remote, distributed education. This will help institutions with fewer resources adapt to our new normal and continue to fulfill their mission of serving students, their families, and their communities. Many had suspected that collaboration and networking were preferable over letting vulnerable colleges fail. COVID-19's new normal seems to be confirming this.</p>
President Barack Obama delivers the commencement address during the Arizona State University graduation ceremony at Sun Devil Stadium May 13, 2009 in Tempe, Arizona. Over 65,000 people attended the graduation.
Photo by Joshua Lott/Getty Images<p>A second condition of the new normal that many had suspected to be true in recent years is the limited role that any one university or type of university can play as an exemplar to universities more broadly. For decades, the evolution of higher education has been shaped by the widespread imitation of a small number of elite universities. Most public research universities could benefit from replicating Berkeley or Michigan. Most small private colleges did well by replicating Williams or Swarthmore. And all universities paid close attention to Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and Yale. It is not an exaggeration to say that the logic of replication has guided the evolution of higher education for centuries, both in the US and abroad.</p><p>Only recently have we been able to move beyond replication to new strategies of change, and COVID-19 has confirmed the legitimacy of doing so. For example, cases such as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/03/10/harvard-moves-classes-online-advises-students-stay-home-after-spring-break-response-covid-19/" target="_blank">Harvard's</a> eviction of students over the course of less than one week or <a href="https://www.nhregister.com/news/coronavirus/article/Mayor-New-Haven-asks-for-coronavirus-help-Yale-15162606.php" target="_blank">Yale's apparent reluctance</a> to work with the city of New Haven, highlight that even higher education's legacy gold standards have limits and weaknesses. We are hopeful that the new normal will include a more active and earnest recognition that we need many types of universities. We think the new normal invites us to rethink the very nature of "gold standards" for higher education.</p>
A graduate student protests MIT's rejection of some evacuation exemption requests.
Photo: Maddie Meyer/Getty Images<p>Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we had started to suspect and now understand that America's colleges and universities are among the many institutions of democracy and civil society that are, by their very design, incapable of being sufficiently responsive to the full spectrum of modern challenges and opportunities they face. Far too many higher education outcomes are determined by a student's family income, and in the context of COVID-19 this means that lower-income students, first-generation students and students of color will be disproportionately afflicted. And without new designs, we can expect postsecondary success for these same students to be as elusive in the new normal, as it was in the <a href="http://pellinstitute.org/indicators/reports_2019.shtml" target="_blank">old normal</a>. This is not just because some universities fail to sufficiently recognize and engage the promise of diversity, this is because few universities have been designed from the outset to effectively serve the unique needs of lower-income students, first-generation students and students of color.</p>
Where can the new normal take us?<p>As colleges and universities face the difficult realities of adapting to COVID-19, they also face an opportunity to rethink their operations and designs in order to respond to social needs with greater agility, adopt technology that enables education to be delivered at scale, and collaborate with each other in order to maintain the dynamism and resilience of the American higher education system.</p> <p>COVID-19 raises questions about the relevance, the quality, and the accessibility of higher education—and these are the same challenges higher education has been grappling with for years. </p> <p>ASU has been able to rapidly adapt to the present circumstances because we have spent nearly two decades not just anticipating but <em>driving</em> innovation in higher education. We have adopted a <a href="https://www.asu.edu/about/charter-mission-and-values" target="_blank">charter</a> that formalizes our definition of success in terms of "who we include and how they succeed" rather than "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/17/forget-varsity-blues-madness-lets-talk-about-students-who-cant-afford-college/" target="_blank">who we exclude</a>." We adopted an entrepreneurial <a href="https://president.asu.edu/read/higher-logic" target="_blank">operating model</a> that moves at the speed of technological and social change. We have launched initiatives such as <a href="https://www.instride.com/how-it-works/" target="_blank">InStride</a>, a platform for delivering continuing education to learners already in the workforce. We developed our own robust technological capabilities in ASU <a href="https://edplus.asu.edu/" target="_blank">EdPlus</a>, a hub for research and development in digital learning that, even before the current crisis, allowed us to serve more than 45,000 fully online students. We have also created partnerships with other forward-thinking institutions in order to mutually strengthen our capabilities for educational accessibility and quality; this includes our role in co-founding the <a href="https://theuia.org/" target="_blank">University Innovation Alliance</a>, a consortium of 11 public research universities that share data and resources to serve students at scale. </p> <p>For ASU, and universities like ASU, the "new normal" of a post-COVID world looks surprisingly like the world we already knew was necessary. Our record breaking summer 2020 <a href="https://asunow.asu.edu/20200519-sun-devil-life-summer-enrollment-sets-asu-record" target="_blank">enrollment</a> speaks to this. What COVID demonstrates is that we were already headed in the right direction and necessitates that we continue forward with new intensity and, we hope, with more partners. In fact, rather than "new normal" we might just say, it's "go time." </p>
Check out these mysterious optical illusions that affect our visual perception.
- Troxler's effect or "fading" causes images to disappear from your field of vision.
- Scientists don't have a full understanding yet of how this works.
- The effect is linked to the way neurons are adapted by the visual system.
THE LILAC CHASER<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMDU1OTgyOC9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjg0OTI5Mn0.Bha6hEz63mh7MzwjAz9uL0Sgk3xD9N7ALTk9acWjW5M/img.gif?width=980" id="94559" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a6fa6ecc96de1cc55da7f3191c8fa086" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Look at the black cross at the center of the image and the spots in this "lilac chaser" illusion will fade away in a few seconds. A grey background and the cross will remain unless you are among those who will also see a moving blue-green spot. You might even notie a bunch of green spots when you move your eyes away after a while.
HOW DOES IT WORK?<p>Research indicates the effect is related to how neurons important for perceiving stimuli are adapted by the visual system. Unchanging stimuli will eventually disappear from our awareness while our mind will fill the areas where they used to be with the background information (or color). A <strong>"sensory fading" </strong>or<strong> "filling-in"</strong> is linked to <em><strong>saccades</strong></em> – involuntary eye movements that happen even when the gaze appears settled. If we fixate on a point, an unmoving image or scene would fade from view in a few seconds thanks to the "<em>local neural adaptation </em>of the <em>rods, cones</em> and <em>ganglion cells</em> in the retina," <a href="https://www.illusionsindex.org/i/troxler-effect" target="_blank">explains the Illusions Index.</a> </p><p>The effect is made stronger if the stimulus image is low contrast or blurred. </p><p>While <a href="https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0042698905006693" target="_blank">studies</a> showed the effect doesn't only occur in the eyes but partially in the brain, there's not yet a definitive explanation for everything involved in this unusual visual phenomenon. </p>
Another example image of the Troxler effect. Look at the center of the image for about 10 seconds.
And another fun example:<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1c95efc4dbb1d807658af68ed6261020"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c6j4ftoJzj8?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Sallie Krawcheck and Bob Kulhan will be talking money, jobs, and how the pandemic will disproportionally affect women's finances.
Scientists uncovered the secrets of what drove some of the world's last remaining woolly mammoths to extinction.
Every summer, children on the Alaskan island of St Paul cool down in Lake Hill, a crater lake in an extinct volcano – unaware of the mysteries that lie beneath.