The Socialist Awakening: What's Different Now About the Left

Columbia Global Reports

by John B. Judis

John Judis is the author of one of the seminal books about the 2016 election, The Populist Explosion, which has sold 38,000 copies and was named One of six books to help understand Trump's win by The New York Times and The Economist called it Well-written and well-researched, powerfully argued and perfectly timed. Judis is also the author of The Nationalist Revival, published in 2018, which was highly acclaimed and has sold over 9,000 copies. EJ Dionne in The American Prospect called it essential reading. Both titles have been popular as course adoptions Judis is a veteran political reporter who examines national and global political trends through a nonpartisan lens. He specializes in speaking truth to liberals, wrote EJ Dionne in The Washington Post. Through his long career in progressive journalism, Judis has made a habit of seeing things that others were missing. With his new book examining the new socialism of the left, he once again provides a clarifying look at one of the biggest political trends of our time. Completes Judis's political trilogy explaining the Trump era.
The Populist Explosion, The Nationalist Revival and The Socialist Awakening have a branded cover design and display well together.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, History, Current Affairs, Audiobook

136 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 29, 2020

About the author

John B. Judis is an American journalist. Born in Chicago he attended Amherst College and received B.A. and M.A. degrees in Philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley. He is a senior editor at The New Republic and a contributing editor to The American Prospect.

A founding editor of Socialist Revolution (now Socialist Review) in 1969 and of the East Bay Voice in the 1970s, Judis started reporting from Washington in 1982, when he became a founding editor and Washington correspondent for In These Times, a democratic-socialist weekly magazine.

He has also written for GQ, Foreign Affairs, Mother Jones, The New York Times Magazine, and The Washington Post.

In 2002, he published a book (co-written with political scientist Ruy Teixeira) arguing that Democrats would retake control of American politics, thanks in part to growing support from minorities and well-educated professionals. The title, The Emerging Democratic Majority, was a deliberate echo of Kevin Phillips' 1969 classic, The Emerging Republican Majority. The book was named one of the year's best by The Economist magazine.

Reviews

[David Wineberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is socialism the flavor of the moment, picked up by a younger generation that has no clue how horrific it would be? John Judis, whose life has been socialism, says it is far more than that. In The Socialist Awakening, he shows that today’s vision of socialism is far different. This is not your great grandfather’s socialism. It has been molded and adapted for the 21st century by thinkers who are witnessing the horrors of an unfettered and corrupt market economy. Socialism is primed to be a major factor in national politics for the foreseeable future. There might actually be a choice between the two parties going forward.

First, how do Millennials not cringe at the word? For one thing, no one is seriously talking about a takeover. There will be no glorious revolution. Millennials can plainly see socialism working beautifully with in the capitalist system, without destroying what has been positive. Judis says “They see socialism as developing within capitalism, the way capitalism developed within feudalism. Socialism creates institutions and laws that fulfill the ethical ideals of liberty, equality, justice, democracy, and social solidarity.”

And when the young advance guard talks about socialism, it is not defensive, but analytical. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says “When Millennials talk about socialism, we’re talking about countries and systems that already exist that have already proven to be successful in the modern world. We’re talking about single-payer healthcare that has already been successful in in many different models, from Finland to Canada to the UK.”

So the dreaded socialism does not raise panic among Millennials. It is closer to jealousy, as America fails to deliver on dream after dream for its own citizens.

The book is compact and compressed and easy to digest. Judis quickly reviews the various stages socialism has evolved through, from purist Marxism, to various colors of populism, through its all but total disappearance (in the USA), to its evident resurgence. It is a valuable overview. It’s good to know where all this came from and why what is being proposed today is a far better, more reasonable and achievable version of an idea that has kept changing without boundaries. Principles, sure. But not boundaries. Socialism, like every political force, has been all over the place, and Judis has collected it in tight paragraphs for all to see and understand.

This is the final book of a trilogy, the others being devoted to populism and nationalism. But socialism is the most controversial, and for many, especially the older generations, the most fearsome. The very word alone is enough to stir fury among the boomers, because it is somehow the opposite of total freedom. There is nothing about it that could possibly be of benefit to Americans, and they dismiss anything that smacks of it before it can be discussed.

For Millennials, membership should have its privileges. If the USA is the most advanced and the richest nation, why is there so much misery, poverty, sickness, debt and self-destruction? There doesn’t have to be, and the evidence is just across borders. They see it as insanity that the US is so far behind.

The lightning rod has been Bernie Sanders. Judis says Sanders is the most important (American) figure in socialism since Eugene Debs, who ran for president numerous times and brought socialism from church-like clubs and assemblies to a nationally-recognized political force.

In the 2016 primaries, Sanders got more votes from 18-29 year olds than Clinton and Trump combined. By January 2020, polls were showing that well over 2/3 think government should be doing more to solve problems. The catalysts, Judis says, were the financial crisis, climate change, and Trump. The result is an insurgence within the Democratic Party (it couldn’t possibly happen in today’s Republican Party), clearly favored by the young.

Even though Sanders didn’t get the nomination, he has clearly moved the goalposts to the left. The Democratic Party now talks in Sanders’ terms, nothing like what it was like under Obama or Clinton or Carter. Biden has asked Sanders to put his people in Biden’s taskforces looking at issues and policies. This alone has changed the political dynamic in the USA.

Judis draws clear lines among socialism, populism and nationalism. But he insists socialism needs nationalism to work. The long-held belief of socialists that everything should be universal, that everyone should help everyone and love everyone – stops at the border for Judis. He says it can’t work if people can move to the USA and leave at will. The USA can’t provide jobs to all comers. Free healthcare can’t simply be offered to everyone who seeks it from anywhere in the world. He says nationalism is a key component to making it work within capitalism. And it needs to be within the borders of the nation-state.

We’re nowhere near that point.

In a chapter on British socialism, Judis traces its more successful trail, with all its ups and downs. It is very real, and there are lessons to be found if Americans want to look. Much as Trump is obsessed with dismantling everything ever achieved by Obama, so Thatcher was obsessed with dismantling everything ever achieved by Labour. It has tortured the British economy and society ever since. Judis dismisses political compromises like British Labour’s “Third Way” under Blair as misguided, ineffective and unworkable. A third way is nothing to vote for.

In Judis’ view, capitalism is not going away. It is too well entrenched and has too many accomplishments going for it to just be tossed aside. Millennials see that. They are not about overthrow. They do not have manifestos, militias or martyrs on offer. What socialism means to them is greater equality and enhanced social services. To them, Trump has pushed the pendulum about as far to the right as it can go. The time has come for it to swing back. And he, the pandemic, the recession and climate change have primed it to do so.

David Wineberg

[Wendelle]

In this short book, author John B. Judis argues that socialism, as the current American generation understands it and aspires to and supports it, is no longer about the Marxist dream of nationalization of property and ownership of the means of production drastically seized and shared by the working class. Rather, Judis says that the socialist dream, as championed by Sanders and Warren in the US, is about aspiration for the Scandinavian model of social democracy, or the conclusion of FDR's New Deal and blueprint for an economic bill of rights-- namely, socialism now is about the desire for public healthcare, public education, greater social support structures

[Paige McLoughlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fairly good outline of the socialist resurgence in the figureheads of Bernie and Corbyn in the US and UK. This story has obviously been overshadowed by Trump and Brexit but it is a real phenomenon. Socialism in the UK is more well known but it is a very neglected topic until recently in the US. The US at times has had strong socialist figures in its history which have made trouble and affected policy in the two-party context and buried afterward and history is rewritten. Well, when the going gets gilded ages the socialists come back. And they are back today. Spends some time on Bernie and Corbyn and the swelling membership of organizations like the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). Also talks about the changing and very different relationship between today's new socialists and orthodox Marxism it is different especially since cold-war bogeymen are thirty years gone now and a whole new generation is not intimidated by red scares. A good outline of a new thing that somewhat resembles old things but isn't the same.

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the 2016 Presidential primaries, Bernie Sanders got more votes from 18- to 29-year-olds than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump combined and YouGov polling showed that 'identification as a socialist actually increased as millennials entered their thirties' suggesting that these numbers are not something the youth are 'growing out of.'

This is a short book that describes the history of socialism in the US and the UK, especially focused on the 'Democratic Socialism' that has gained so much appeal and traction. As a millennial who aligns in many ways with democratic socialist goals and policy, I found this an enlightening and thoughtful primer on how we got to where we are and where things might go.

I liked this quote from Bernie, said back when I was still wearing diapers, 'To me, socialism doesn't mean state ownership of everything, by any means. It means creating a nation and a world in which all humans beings have a decent standard of living.'

Economist Joseph Stiglitz: 'The new breed of American democratic socialists—or call them what you will—is simply advocating a model that embraces government's important role in social protection and inclusion, environmental protection, and public investment in infrastructure, technology, and education. They recognize the public's regulatory role in preventing corporations from exploiting customers or workers in a multitude of ways.'

--BEWARE OF NOTES--

Socialism has different meanings for different groups. Your orthodox Marxist socialist might spring first to mind, but even before the German philosopher there was anti-factory Utopian socialism and your Sermon-on-the-mount variety Ethical/Christian socialism. Then there was Stalin's Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet era (Lenin's idea of the "cadre" that knew the interests of the working class better than the working class itself did).

What gets closer to approximating socialism today (at least the sort of socialism that millennials in the U.S. seem to find more palatable (as best represented by Bernie Sanders and AOC) is a democratic socialism carved out in the late 1800s by Eduard Bernstein. His 'great contribution was to attempt to ground socialist politics in the realities of capitalism—to recognize that the development of capitalism was not leading inexorably to a class struggle between a blue-collar proletariat and a white-collar bourgeoisie.'

Here are some of the attributes of this new democratic socialism form of socialism

1. Socialism within capitalism - just as capitalism developed within feudalism. Socialism programs and institutions can be developed within capitalism that shift economic and social power from capital ("The rich and powerful") toward labor ("working people"). For example: a stiff wealth tax!, granting workers' representatives equal power on corporate boards, creating regulatory agencies to rope in bad corporate behavior, public ownership of essential industries like healthcare, education, transportation, and energy production.

2. Socialism as a Just system (outside of just the workplace) - Marx's socialism was about workers and the economy. 'The new socialists don't limit their effort to obtain justice tot he workplace... They want to overcome domination across the board, in society as well as the economy.' That includes racial, gender, and sexual equality.

3. The primacy of politics - This was an interesting point. In the past some socialists have argued that socialism is the INEVITABLE outcome of society as it evolves from capitalism, but Judis reminds us that in the 1930s FDR's New Deal (which he saw as a kind of proto-socialism) and Hitler's Nazism were both reactions to economic collapse. Both offered extensive social protections, but obviously Hitler's authoritarian fascism took a different form than the policies of the New Deal. It may seem obvious, but this is just to say, 'what happens will depend on politics, not on inexorable historical laws.'

4. We may call it 'Socialism', but we don't have to - Bernie and Warren were very similar on policy. Bernie didn't shy so much from the term 'socialist', while Warren claimed she was 'a capitalist to the bone.' Socialism doesn't carry as strong of a connotation for millennials as it did for cold war era kids. We'll see if these policies of social protections for all will need a rebrand or not.

5. Populist politics - New socialists reject the orthodox Marxist idea that the industrial working class is the vanguard of a socialist revolution. It is no longer an appeal to the uniting of just 'the working class', but appeals to 'the people' vs 'the establishment' or 'the elite.' The group of workers included in this united group is much more diverse than the orthodox Marxist criteria.

Judis profiles Eugene Debs, Victor Berman, and then Bernie Sanders as three modern U.S.-based socialists, but also emphasizes socialist policy implemented by those who don’t explicitly identify with the branding, including many democrats (things like municipal water systems and minimum wage).

Early on Sanders styled himself a 'Swedish-style socialist.' In 1990, he said, 'To me, socialism doesn't mean state ownership of everything, by any means. It means creating a nation and a world in which all humans beings have a decent standard of living.' In 1991, he said, 'At this point in American history, I would be very delighted if we could move in a conservative manner in the direction of a country like Sweden, which has a national healthcare system which guarantees free healthcare, which has free education for all its kids.'

The US has a history of radicalism beginning with Tom Paine and continuing through Frederick Douglass, Lincoln, the Populists, the Progressive Party, Roosevelt's Second New Deal and his Second Bill if Rights in 1944. https://bit.ly/2Ktc5yA Watch FDR talk about it here: https://bit.ly/37iyuqn

There were socialist policies enacted during certain eras of the 20th century. 'The period from 1932 to 1972 saw the erection of extensive social protections against corporate capitalism.' Then in 1980, with Reagan and Thatcher at the helm, the US and Great Britain both entered a period where 'market fundamentalism' held sway and in this recent period socialist institutions within capitalism were dismantled or gutted. Judis posits that in the wake of the Great Recession and the depression caused by the pandemic, the US and Europe appear to be entering a new period in which it is likely that forces favoring social protection will hold sway.

So what now? One of Judis' main throughlines in this book is his exhortations to liberal progressives (those of us who would support socialist policies) to favor a vision of viable, feasible socialism. Here, I think he's saying, 'don't scare people away talking about making everything completely free, a big UBI system, and government ownership of all the tech companies, etc.' He also argues—and I found this a bit harder to swallow—for avoiding 'potentially divisive extreme sociocultural appeals that go beyond the ideas that informed socialism. These would include, for instance, contemporary opposition not simply to discrimination based on adopted genders, but any distinctions based upon gender, or support not simply for comprehensive immigration reform, but for no limits at all on immigration.' I understand Judis' apprehension and political savvy, but I personally am still making up my mind whether it's best to shoot for the moon or water down your social protections in the hopes of wooing a larger group of supporters.

Judis looks across the pond at Jeremy Corbyn and the democratic socialists of the UK's Labour party. He points to their waffling on Nationalist policy as a reason for their recent foundering. 'Strange as it seems, a viable socialism must be nationalist.' He chides liberal progressives in the US and the UK for treating all nationalist policy as if it is only informed by racist and bigoted incentives. I think I better appreciate where he is coming from after reading this section—certainly I can admit that some in the US and the UK have fared worse than others as a result of policy changes towards globalization and immigration. Policies that give jobs to the lowest bidders coupled with lax regulation on corporations hell-bent on minimizing costs does result in a chaotic and churn-filled jobs market that will leave a lot of people without a good standard of living. That said, and despite the obvious natural tendency to focus on our closest-proximity concentric circles (self, family, community, state, country, region, world, for example), I'm still not convinced that limiting our attention to the needs of those inside our rather arbitrary borders is humane or morally defensible. So my mind is still evolving when it comes to the topic of the merits of some sort of nationalism as a key pillar of a feasible socialism.

[Michael Erickson · Rating 4 out of 5]

What starts out as a, "here's how Bernie can still win" bit of expired leftist copium soon becomes a cold splash of water to the face for those who need to hear it. Demographic trends are not destiny, and one can never rest on their laurels before the work is done.

This is a good primer on the different sub-types of socialism (of which this book covers nine by my count), with a focus on American politics, save for a single chapter that detours over to the UK to cover what the Labor Party has been up to between WWII through the early days of COVID. There is special care given to showing how socialist policies tend to fare well with the general public, but how once anyone actually says the dreaded S-word out loud, no one wants anything to do with it anymore.

Parts of this haven't aged well, which is strange to say of a book not even five years old. There was a sense that the government's plan for handling the pandemic (or lack thereof) would further push the public into demanding a post-capitalism future with a state that was more willing and capable of providing for its citizens. A lot of faith was placed in Gen Z's voting trends and distaste for capitalism, but there was only one throwaway line I recall that suggested, hey, maybe watch out for a resurgence of neo-fascism!

If nothing else, the final closing chapter is a hard dose of reality that some people I know really need to take to heart: the average person doesn't care or have the time to study political theory. Demanding purity tests (the DSA refusing to endorse Biden in 2020 is highlighted here) and taking the most extreme positions on cultural issues alienates potential converts and distracts from the central economic goal of combating wealth inequality. If you want to be a relevant political movement, at some point you're going to have to but the treatises down and engage in actual politics.

[mimi · Rating 2 out of 5]

this book had good information on the history of socialism and the changes the word has had since the beginning and i enjoyed those parts but it had some very bad takes . while i agree that we live in a different societal context than what was present when socialism began, i think to say that socialism will only work if it stops trying to talk about issues such as immigration gender or other “alienating” topics is harmful and ignores the nuances and culture of americans today.

[Paul Sheckarski · Rating 2 out of 5]

Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault and transphobia

Benighted by pernicious blind spots. Seems to argue from a position that has praise for socialism but then takes several cheap shots at young socialists. More centrist and stodgy than it first seems.

p. 110 takes issue with Extinction Revolution demanding a 2025 carbon-free GB. 1st of all, demands from progressives always seem outrageous to centrists until they've become accustomed to them; centrists always need time to adjust themselves to new ideas. So the suggestion that the idea sounds unreasonable to the author does nothing to convince me it's unreasonable. 2nd, he says, well, (social) scientists say it's unreasonable too, and say achieving a carbon-free GB by even 2030 would be radical and involve "massive disruption," preferring 2050 as a more reasonable target. But: disruption... of what? The status quo. Yet he declines to say what our climate will look like in 2030 and what kinds of disruptions that failing to meet carbon reduction deadlines by that year will cause, which is unfortunate because climate scientists have told us exactly what it will look like. In light of climate scientists' predictions, 2025 seems all too reasonable.

Author scoffs repeatedly at what he calls "gender abolition," but when he clarifies what he means it's really quite pathetic of him. He singles out a "newly formed" transgender group demanding expulsion from the Labour party "several venerable feminist groups," merely because they wanted "to be able to limit their rape and shelter services to biological women." 1st, the author declines to bring moral clarity to this disagreement, simply writing it off as the kind of leftist squabbling that loses elections. Interesting, since the author had similarly scoffed at Marx for being unconcerned with moral justice. 2nd, there is no room for TERFs in any political organization dedicated to social justice. It's like arguing we need to let white supremacists into our tent to keep it big. No. It is not a contradiction to refuse to tolerate bigots. 3rd, it's a moral failing of the author to frame a group's membership in the party as justified because it has been there longer. Very slimy. I don't think a single paragraph ever turned me off a book so quickly.

The argument for keeping transgender folk out of women's bathrooms and shelters is rooted in the insidious idea that men are inherently violent, but this is precisely the kind of toxic masculinity that feminism seeks to disabuse us all of. It is not normal or natural for men to be violent. It is also impossible to claim that all rape is committed by or against men, so if one's goal is to keep rape victims away from "people who remind them of their rapist" then you've got a much more complicated task ahead of you than simply keeping all the men out of the room. Furthermore, how would one go about determining whether an applicant to your shelter is biologically female? I daresay that demanding to inspect the genitals of rape victims is counter-productive to the safety and healing they seek.

Finally, it's abominable to imply that people fighting for recognition of their human rights are a political inconvenience.

[Daniel Simmons · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting topic but somewhat muddled delivery -- I enjoyed Judis's first two books in this "trilogy" much more for their clarity and concision. The closing chapter/essay, which explores the intersectionality of populism, nationalism, and socialism, is the best part of this book, and worth bypassing the rest for.

[Eric Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 2002, John Judis wrote a book predicting a new Democratic majority. It was his riposte to Kevin Phillips' The Emerging Republican Majority (1969) which correctly predicted a quarter century of conservative Republican dominance of American politics. Judis argued then that demographic trends indicated that the Democrats were on the cusp of locking in a majority that would sustain them for decades to come. And then, in the 2004 Presidential election, the Democratic candidate went down to defeat at the hands of an unimpressive and unsuccessful Republican President.

In his newest book, Judis argues that after many decades in hibernation, the socialist ideals espoused by Eugene V. Debs have undergone a resurgence of sorts in the United States. This is undoubtedly true. He points not only to the Bernie Sanders campaigns in 2016 and 2020, but also to the spectacular rise of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the successor organisation to Debs' Socialist Party. Judis is scathingly critical of some people in the DSA leadership who come from sectarian Trotskyist backgrounds. Those people reject the very strategy (known as realignment) that was first embraced by DSA founder Michael Harrington in the 1960s and that stood behind Bernie Sanders' campaigns. Instead of trying to create yet another failed third party, democratic socialists need to engage with the Democratic Party, which is where their natural audience (trade unionists, feminists, environmentalists, people of colour) are to be found. I think Judis is right about that.

Where his book goes astray is in lengthy discussions of various academic disputes about the relevance of this or that strand of socialist thinking, with Judis coming down firmly in the camp that rejects "orthodox Marxism". He does, however, seem to have a warm spot for "social democracy" which is good thing. It would be useful in these kinds of discussions to get beyond the tired Scandinavian examples that are always cited and to look at some more radical socialist experiments that managed to remain democratic, including both the kibbutz movement in Israel and the short-lived Georgian Democratic Republic of 1918-21, which was led by the Mensheviks.

Judis inserts a chapter about Corbynism which is largely correct and adequate. But he completely misses the significance of the debate about the rise of anti-Semitism on the British Left. He notes in passing that "Corbyn was plagued by accusations of anti-Semitism" and concedes that "some of which were justified". Judis' book was written long before Corbyn was suspended by his own party -- an event unprecedented in British political history. This had everything to do with the "accusations" of anti-Semitism. The book would have been a better one, I think, had it stayed more focussed on U.S. politics, which Judis understands very well.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a subscriber to Colombia Global Reports (which I highly recommend) I get these books 2 weeks early! This is the 3rd in John Judis's series on political movements, and though the weakest in my opinion, still a very good and informative read! The end of the book wraps the three topics together (Populism, Nationalism, and Socialism) and why together in some form there may be light at the end of the tunnel, even if that seems irrationally hopeful in the US currently...

[Selkis · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short interesting overview of the origins and history of socialism and also Sanders, Trump, and the current situation. It's very informative and helped me understand the current political situation. However, sometimes it was a bit dry and just felt like a long list of facts.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book for an introduction to modern socialism. It explores how socialism has changed in the last century from the typical Marx's definition. It is a great book for those beginning to look into socialism.

[K · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very compelling look at current politics and the potential for socialist ideals to make headway in our capitalist society. The opening chapters that detail the excesses and flaws of capitalism and how various forms of socialism would combat them are the best part. The end chapters get bogged down a bit in a jargony look at variations of socialist thought, kind of like every political science book that I hated in college.

The author's main point is that the US currently (the book was written while Biden was campaigning against Trump in the 2020 election) a mess, and it's possibly time for another major social revolution that could go socialist or ultra-progressive. This would be similar to the New Deal as a response to the Great Depression, during which FDR adopted numerous key policies elicited by socialist candidate for president Eugene Debs. The author acknowledges that it could go nationalist and ultra-right as well, and there are examples of this throughout history -- such as the Nazi party.

The book also does an excellent job of differentiating a socialist or communist view about whether the shifting power to labor rather than capital (and the handful of owners of capital) is a national issue or an international issue. Marxist purists say it's only a workers-of-the-world unite approach. But in the last 70-80 years, it's been pretty obvious that a socialist approach of a country taking care of its own -- a nationalist approach, in a sense -- is much more politically palatable. So if you're a pragmatic person who wants universal healthcare, mandatory family leave, and a living wage in the U.S., then you line up with socialist goals, and you don't worry about aligning with poor farmers in the Congo. This doesn't mean that international cooperation isn't essential for things like dealing with climate change and war, but it means that significant change can be achieved on a national or even local scale, or within a particular part of the market (stronger labor unions), without having to go full-bore to no private ownership of property.

The book is short, and it's not intended to be a comprehensive review of social-political history, nor an exhaustive list of options for going forward. But even with that caveat, I feel the ending is kind of weak. Bernie Sanders is repeatedly credited with being the face of a social democratic movement now, with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez given a lesser compliment for jumping on the bandwagon effectively and possibly being the new face of the movement. But the positive trends that the author sees seem incredibly small, compared to the right-wing, gun-toting, Bible-quoting terrorists who stormed the Capitol in DC, attack liberal school board members and librarians, and murder abortion-rights activists. Having a few social democrats in office at the local level and a couple of them in Congress isn't going to move the needle against the ignorant, racist, violent mass on the right. How to get through to them is a mystery, since it's been obvious for decades that they are acting against their economic interest by supporting Republicans (and Democrats) on free trade, lower taxes, less regulation, etc. I don't see a solution.

Yet while I don't see a solution, this book does give me some hope. If the message from the Left that we're all in this together against the concentration of power in evil people like Elon Musk and Ron DeSantis does resonate with the aggrieved suburban and rural Whites, there is a chance to turn this around. The facts are on the Left's side. Let's see if they can turn the hearts their way, too.

[Richard Derus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rating: 4* of five

The Publisher Says: John Judis is the author of one of the seminal books about the 2016 election, The Populist Explosion , which has sold 38,000 copies and was named One of six books to help understand Trump's win by The New York Times and The Economist called it "Well-written and well-researched, powerfully argued and perfectly timed." Judis is also the author of The Nationalist Revival , published in 2018, which was highly acclaimed and has sold over 9,000 copies. EJ Dionne in The American Prospect called it essential reading.

Both titles have been popular as course adoptions Judis is a veteran political reporter who examines national and global political trends through a nonpartisan lens. He specializes in speaking truth to liberals, wrote EJ Dionne in The Washington Post. Through his long career in progressive journalism, Judis has made a habit of seeing things that others were missing. With his new book examining the new socialism of the left, he once again provides a clarifying look at one of the biggest political trends of our time. Completes Judis's political trilogy explaining the Trump era.

I RECEIVED A DRC FROM THE PUBLISHER VIA NETGALLEY. THANK YOU.

My Review: I read this book, and I believed it was true. I do not now know if its analysis of Millennials is accurate, and thus what happened in November 2024 was an anomaly of some sort...read "the results were manipulated like they were in 2016"...or if Author Judis is just like the rest of us elitists on the left who just want to believe as much as Fox Mulder wanted to believe.

Maybe I'm an idiot (stop snickering) but I choose door number optimism.

My generation, like the one before us and the one immediately after, fell for the capitalist lies about socialism = totalitarianism, thus flat refused to see the way socialism rescued capitalism from a full-on leftist rebellion during the Great Depression, and created the most powerful economy in the history of the planet, and reduced immiseration on a scale so epic that the Economic Royalists have spent forty-five years fighting back all the gains made so their power will once again be unchallenged and unshared.

I am deeply distressed that the plan is succeeding still, accelerating even, as they roll out the fascist facets of their controlling regime. All it took was repeating the old lies about Others that regularly succeed in scaring the crap out of the delicate little manbabies who can't tolerate anyone not looking/acting/thinking exactly like them.

So reading this book felt a little like masochism. It also felt a lot like a call to arms, a path marked towards reclaiming the future from the tech scum of the Nerd Reich before it becomes nigh-on impossible.

Don't shirk your part in the battle for the future. #ReadingIsResistance

[Jeremy Reppy · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author provides an interesting and informative history of socialism and its various iterations. When I think of socialism, I tend to think of the stereotypical 19th century/early 20th century ideology focused on collective ownership of goods, resources, and the means of production; the social democracy of the Nordic countries; or the democratic socialism espoused by Sanders and his followers. However, the author describes multiple early versions of socialism. He does a good job of explaining why socialism struggled to catch on in many western nations, especially the US, and why the failures of the major political parties in the US and Britain to effectively address various forms of inequality have caused a renewed interest in socialist ideas among the younger generations in recent years, as best epitomized by the support of Bernie Sanders by younger voters (and to a lesser extent, Jeremy Corbyn in Britain, whose personality dampens some of his appeal).

I found it interesting that the author believes the biggest obstacle to democratic socialism truly becoming a powerful force is the failure of its adherents to understand the importance of nationalism. You might be able to convince a majority of people to support collectivist policies, in particular the higher taxes/financial burden required, but that requires that the group of beneficiaries be defined.

One flaw in the book is that the author seems to believe that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) can take over as the face of democratic socialism in the US and keep it relevant and potentially successful on a national level. He repeatedly links Sanders and AOC, and notes that Sanders' age makes it unrealistic for him to remain the national leader long-term. However, there is not much substance to AOC, who has demonstrated a very tenuous grasp of economics, statistics, and at times, basic math, and who is prone to make false or misleading statements and vilifying her critics when confronted with her errors (similar in ways to her fellow New Yorker, Trump).

I received a copy of the e-book via NetGalley in exchange for a review.

[Paige McLoughlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fairly good outline of the socialist resurgence in the figureheads of Bernie and Corbyn in the US and UK. This story has obviously been overshadowed by Trump and Brexit but it is a real phenomenon. Socialism in the UK is more well known but it is a very neglected topic until recently in the US. The US at times has had strong socialist figures in its history which have made trouble and affected policy in the two-party context and buried afterward and history is rewritten. Well, when the going gets gilded ages the socialists come back. And they are back today. Spends some time on Bernie and Corbyn and the swelling membership of organizations like the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). Also talks about the changing and very different relationship between today's new socialists and orthodox Marxism it is different especially since cold-war bogeymen are thirty years gone now and a whole new generation is not intimidated by red scares. A good outline of a new thing that somewhat resembles old things but isn't the same.
2 likes · Like ∙ flag
following reviews


READING PROGRESS
Finished Reading
December 26, 2020 – Started Reading
December 26, 2020 – Shelved
December 26, 2020 –
22.0%
December 26, 2020 –
44.0%
December 26, 2020 –
63.0%
December 26, 2020 –
63.0% "So far it seems a somewhat sympathetic reading of the current socialist resurgence in the least likely of places the USA. Includes a lot of talk about the DSA. I tried to get involved with those folks in the early 1990s but didn't become a dues-paying member until this year."
December 26, 2020 –
81.0%
December 26, 2020 –
92.0% "Interesting remark towards the end "pandering to nationalism will always benefit the right" I agree but smart socialists can't ignore nationalism it is a powerful psychological sentiment and socialists have to contend with it if they want to defeat the right."
December 26, 2020 – Shelved as: american-history
December 26, 2020 – Shelved as: early-twenty-first-century
December 26, 2020 – Shelved as: european-history
December 26, 2020 – Shelved as: politics
December 26, 2020 – Finished Reading

[Matthew Petti · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very quick read on the past and future of American democratic socialism; I finished the whole thing in a day.

Julis starts with the premise that contemporary U.S. politics are experiencing a resurgence in socialism, from the Bernie Sanders campaign and the growth of the Democratic Socialists of America to record numbers of young people identifying as socialists in polls. He then tries to explain this by looking at historic socialist movements in America and modern demographic changes.

It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between description and prescription in the book. Julis is speaking as a long-time veteran of the socialist movement, so he is not an unbiased observer. When he writes about socialists' opportunities for the future, it sometimes feels like Julis is wishcasting; when Julis criticizes socialists' failings, it sometimes feels like he is re-litigating his internal movement beefs.

According to Julis, past socialist movements failed because they placed too much emphasis — almost a religious faith — on some coming revolution led by the classic blue-collar working class. But capitalism is now losing popularity because groups traditionally a step above the old-fashioned working class — nurses, teachers, unemployed college graduates — are starting to feel screwed over. Nothing is more powerful than dashed expectations, after all. Add the end of Cold War red scare propaganda, and you have a recipe for young people flocking to the "socialist" label.

Julis's recommendations are a little disappointing, however. He believes that socialists should give up on the "utopian" dream of establishing public/worker ownership of industry, instead focusing on concrete measures to limit corporate power. Also, they should embrace patriotism and some immigration restrictions. That is fine to argue for, but it's just muscular liberalism. Why bother adopting the "socialist" label?

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

In under 140 pages, Judis outlines the history and evolution of socialism largely in the context and U.S. and British politics. The pairing of the U.S. and Britain is apt since the two share a language as well as imperialist histories and cultural attitudes. How and why the two diverged politically are instructive for peoples of both lands, as well as what they each much do in common to earn the public’s trust in what it means to set national agendas based on sharing with fellow citizens.

To do that, Judis argues that far-left Marxists who hope for political viability need to acknowledge the last 150 years’ worth of evidence that highlights the significant limits to Marx’s thought. The majority of people who claim to be motivated by democratic socialist values have little time for Marx or his acolytes and are more interested in channeling the dynamism of capitalism to raise money and wealth toward social goods than they are in restructuring society. You don’t hear AOC quoting Marx.

To succeed and lead nationally, Judis says that the left side of the Democratic party must frame its social-benefit agenda in terms of nationalist interest rather than as universal goods. Older leftists will find hard to swallow the challenge to raise the U.S. flag again as a symbol of what is best about the nation and its citizens, rather than see it as a soiled symbol of world-historical cruelty. Young leftists will no doubt find valuable history here and appreciate the opinions of an author with decades of experience on the left.

[Nancy Hudson · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Judis has written a number of books on politics and this book is the third in a trilogy, the first two dealing with populism and nationalism. I will likely read the other two as well as these topics have become interesting to me in the face of the pandemic and economic depression as well as the racial injustice movement. These events lay bare the failures of market capitalism in dramatic fashion. People are disillusioned and seeking new answers. Socialist institutions within capitalism are one viable alternative argues Judis. Judis describes the various types of socialism which is helpful and informative. He proceeds to discuss the history of socialism leading up to current day movements led by Bernie Sanders and others making it clear that it is becoming a lightening rod to mainstream America, at least among the young, as it should given the hurdles they face which we baby boomers did not. He talks about the failure of Labour to reinvent socialism in the UK and how things are unfolding in Europe and elsewhere. It is a good primer and the topic needs further discussion and deeper interrogation to understand how it can work in an America threatened by authoritarianism and unworkable motions of nationalism.

There are still quite a few typos in this advanced reader copy.

Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for this ARC in exchange for an honest review. #NetGalley

[Brian Moyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most of the book was a history of socialism and Marxism in the United States and the UK. He makes a convincing case for an American socialism based on closing the equality gap and transferring power to workers. He also correctly diagnosed that a socialist movement in the United States would have to embrace nationalism and get away from open borders.

I don't think that American progressives have demonstrated that they can separate socialism from identity politics and until they can, socialism will remain a small movement that inspires youth but accomplishes nothing.

Interestingly at the very end of the book he discusses what the name of a socialist movement in the United States could be. I think Democratic Socialists of America should be discarded. A rebranding of the a socialist nationalist movement could bring millions of people on board. I'm sure they could focus group some names. Thy Neighbor? Podemos in Spain is a good example.

[Helena#bookdreamer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thank you netgalley for providing this ARC in exchange for an honest review.
This was an interesting take on the history of socialism and how it can play a part in today's politics. I do agree that the current political parties in the US have not done enough to help the people overcome many of the economic and social issues we currently face. The pandemic has certainly made the issues more apparent. I appreciate the authors mention of a possible socialistic reform within our capitalistic society as natural resources become bleak and affordable housing becomes a thing of the past. I don't see us regaining the economic boom of the 90s but tragically fighting to survive with the minimum as environmental issues worsen.
We certainly need a solution now before things worsen and perhaps socialism can help.
Overall enjoyed the enlightening views of this author as we face an existential question of what's next.

[a ☕︎ · Rating 2 out of 5]

lots of interesting stats and a rundown of socialism in the us, along with varieties of socialist experience: utopian socialism, christian socialism, orthodox marxism, marxism-leninism, social democracy; as well as post-marxist socialism: socialism within capitalism, primacy within politics, explicit and implicit socialism, and populist politics. he’s very much for socialism within capitalism and according to him, both sanders and AOC are as well, which is why they’re popular w the youth (millennials and gen z). this section—about youth—was old ground for me, i voted bernie then biden, even though a lot of my friends are more centrist… anyhow, this section took a little too much of the book for me. bc of this, his arguments about nationalism feel too vague for me to get behind and his criticism about younger voters becomes a little petty at times (sorry :|).

[Andrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

This much needed tome gives an excellent explanation of what socialism truly is and clears any misconception that there has been over the years. The book outlines what ideals socialism stands for and counterpoints how capitalism has failed. In a world where fake news is always a threat, it is refreshing to see a clear and concise description of a means for the world to progress towards. This should be read in every classroom and become fodder for discussion to change the current corrupt political system.

[Steve Nolan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Guy got some Bad Takes. (Elizabeth Warren is the same as Bernie Sanders, because their proposals are similar? Lol good one. And that Jeremy Corbyn was rightfully called an anti-semite!? Fuck off!! Didn't even mention his own party fuckin' purposefully sabotaging themselves. Gross.)

But the worst was probably that "DSA shouldn't support certain things - open borders, trans rights, not endorsing Joe Biden - as to not alienate people" is another dumbassed take. "Cast aside people when it's politically expedient to do so" is extremely shitty.

[Randy Rasa · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well-researched and detailed look at the emerging socialist movement. Is this something to be frightened of, or simply the next evolutionary step in capitalism? This is a very good history, providing context and commentary to help in understanding this important topic.

[Bridget]

Hmmm

[Edwin B · Rating 4 out of 5]

A 2019 Gallup poll, conducted during the upswell of Bernie Sander's bid to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, showed that 43% of Americans believes "socialism would be good for the country."

This dramatic rise in the number of Americans identifying with socialism is verified by tens of thousands joining, within just the last few years, the Democratic Socialists of America.

What "socialism" does this new American following have in mind?

It's quite different from the orthodox Marxism believed in by members of my earlier generation (by those of us raised from the New Left Movement in the U.S., or from the First Quarter Storm in the Philippines), explains this book.

And it’s best to pay attention to this difference, author Judis warns, if veteran Marxists are to be able to contribute anything at all to the further growth of this affinity for socialism in the U.S., instead of being destructive to it.

For one, the socialist sympathizers of today envision a socialism within capitalism.

Society is made better not necessarily by having to nationalize Amazon (for example), but by fighting for, and winning, a larger share of the pie, a better life, a greater equality and democracy for common people. This means increasing: taxes on obscene concentrations of wealth (we should get some of that excessive personal wealth away from Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, for example); social services; the power of employees in corporate governance and collective bargaining; regulations to promote the common good; and public provisioning in key industries, such as in healthcare and education.

For another, there’s no longer comfort from a deluded belief (prevalent among orthodox Marxists) in the ultimate collapse of capitalism. Instead of blind faith in socialism's inevitability, politics takes primacy. The engine of progress is not a "scientific,” deterministic unfolding of history, but is the conduct of an effective fight by socialists and progressives for a better world, based on a moral standpoint of justice, solidarity, and fairness, and on estimations of what can be gained and fought for at different times.

Likewise, forget about revolution, think evolution. Don’t fret, either, over an ultimate goal. Instead, the movement is everything. Yes, this is a “reformist,” Berstein-ian social democracy that most characterizes the socialist sentiment rising in the U.S. today. And that is still a good thing. Got that, comrades?

The “working class” is also no longer the singular vanguard of the struggle for a better society. The world is now more complex, with the interplay of interests and relations based on class, race, immigrant and citizenship status, sex, gender identity, sexual preference, urban/rural locations, educational and professional attainment, and with the emergence of cross-cutting issues, including the pandemic, climate change, Black Lives Matter, globalization, immigration, Medicare for All, voting rights, defense of democracy, among others. The fight for the rightful share of workers and employees in corporate earnings, for better working conditions, and for greater democracy in the company, remains important, but the complete terrain of populist politics is broader, richer, more complex, and contains the full set of indispensable linchpins for fundamental social change.

I disagree with a couple of ideas the author puts forward in this book that have to do with socialists needing to refrain from antagonizing prevailing cultural norms too much, but on the whole, this book is very informative about the nature of the current socialist rising, that includes an important evaluation of its fragility, as well as its potential.

[Logan Macnair · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a deep historical account but a decent quick-and-dirty primer of socialism (and of some of the different types that people often erroneously use interchangeably), its history, and its modern application through the two contemporary case studies of Bernie Sanders in America and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK.

Interesting points re: the modern left’s doubling down on extreme cultural war positions in ways that alienate working class voters (the base of any socialist movement), the feasibility of ‘socialism within capitalism’ (one that goes against orthodox Marxist determinism and may not sit well with some hardliners but is perhaps the most realistic solution we have to stopping the forces of capital), and the ‘dirtiness’ of the word socialism being washed away as younger generations grow up without the context of the Cold War shaping such definitions.

3.75 stars

[Charlie Cray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good one-day read. I find that many Americans attack socialism without knowing much about it. They should read this. It's pretty measured. That said. I was expecting that DSA affiliated reviewers would not like it since, while he gives DSA credit for putting socialism on the map, his criticisms of DSA's uncompromising (and in his view conflicting) position on some issues -- which he thinks will undermine its abilty to attract a larger following, I found myself surprised to be wrong. Here's a DSA review. https://www.dsausa.org/democratic-lef...

[Eduardo Ramos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and thought-provoking take on the state of contemporary socialism, if thinner on concrete proposals than, say, Thomas Picketty. And I must express my reservations at the claim that future socialism will have to be national. It was tried once, they called it national socialism, and it didn´t go well.