Objective Reality Left vs Right

What sets a socialist like me apart from MAGA

When discussing all sorts of societal issues, the topic of bias will come up. I can point to the bias of, say, Fox News, and then conservatives can point to the bias of CNN.

I can point to the bias of MAGA followers and they can shoot back that, as a socialist, I have a left-wing bias. Technically this is all true.

My Political Views

I want to use the opportunity in this article to argue to people who are very devoted to being a centrist why there is nothing principally wrong about having strong political views. What is wrong is rejecting reality and facts.

For instance, MAGA will reject the effectiveness of vaccines or that even COVID-19 killed people. They reject the impact of burning fossil fuels on our climate. They reject basic economic reality. Experts all over the world can tell them Trump’s economic policies are utterly absurd.

One might counter: Are you socialists any better?

Let me clarify one thing first. Regardless of political ideology, you can be someone who respects or rejects objective reality and expert knowledge and understanding. There are, of course, socialists with a poor grip on reality. So my argument is not that being a socialist somehow makes you rational.

Rather, I am here arguing that having a radical political view, such as myself, is in no way in contradiction with a scientific mindset devoted to truth. I should remind people that one of the greatest scientists of all time, Albert Einstein, was also a socialist. Nor are socialists blind to fellow socialists who lost their marbles. One of the best-known and strongest critiques of Stalin was George Orwell, who was himself a devout socialist. Animal Farm was written as criticism of totalitarian socialists.

So here is the thing: Nothing about the core ideas of socialism requires rejecting objective reality. Socialism is not, as often portrayed, about government owning and running things. Instead, the fundamental idea can be explained as “democratization of the economy.”

When the Rationality of Markets Become a Problem

What exactly does “democratization of the economy” mean? That the needs of people are emphasized as opposed to the logic of the market. To the market, it may make sense to deplete fish stocks, pollute water, and exhaust natural resources, because the market doesn’t really take a long-term view of things.

Let me illustrate this with an example from for-profit healthcare vs socialized healthcare. Many people may be at risk of developing diabetes, and thus the sensible thing for a healthcare system would be to get these people onto a healthier path so diabetes is completely avoided.

Isn’t that the profitable option? Shouldn’t markets reward such a choice? No, it actually doesn’t, because markets operate in the short term. An insurance company that sees somebody developing diabetes might want to fund preventative care to hinder that person from developing diabetes.

But the insurance company knows that, since it is far into the future, that person might have switched insurance companies and thus some other insurance company benefits from their choice. In fact, engaging in preventative care would increase their expenses. An insurance company not doing this can sell for lower premiums and thus steal their customers.

There is a parallel here in why companies do not invest more in training their employees. Japanese companies are famous for extensive investment in employees. When they tried their system in the US, it failed completely. Why?

You see, the company would give new hires long and expensive training. Because the training is expensive, they could naturally not offer as high a salary as companies not training employees. Hence what happened is that workers would sign up for the Japanese company, get the expensive training, and then switch to an American company paying higher salaries but not offering any training.

Do you see here how market logic incentivizes short-term thinking? But why does the Japanese system work in Japan? Because of loyalty between workers and employers. Employment in Japan has typically been lifelong. Even in hard times, companies will keep workers onboard. The side effect of this is that workers also have loyalty to their companies. They don’t just leave as soon as someone offers slightly better pay.

Think about it for a second. Isn’t that what human society has been built on since the dawn of time? Our relationships have rarely been purely business. Rather, we forge friendship and family ties. We don’t abandon a sick friend or relative because it is profitable to us. Humans survive as a species because we stay together in hard times.

Imagine if the battlefield worked like capitalism? The sick and wounded would be left behind as they would not be profitable. But armies that do such things lose what Japanese companies had: They lose strong loyalty. The reason you get soldiers to go out and risk their lives for each other is because they trust that the other guy has your back no matter what happens.

What I talked about just now—does that have to do with science or objective reality? Is it about whether sugar hurts your health or not? Whether vaccines work? No, it is about values. It’s about how we humans should relate to each other. It is not a scientific question but a values question.

That is the point I want to get to: As a centrist you might not share my values about what society should prioritize. But we can still share a common understanding of objective reality, such as: climate change is real, vaccines work, COVID-19 killed people, and putting 100% tariffs on everyone is just really bad economic policy.

There is a Sensible Way of Implementing Tariffs

I should nuance my view on tariffs, because as a socialist I am naturally not going to have a warm embrace of maximized free trade and minimized tariffs. But the difference between me and MAGA is that I understand the tradeoffs. I know very well that consumers will get higher prices when you put in place tariffs.

I live this every day because my native Norway has very high tariffs on agricultural products. As a result, food is generally a lot more expensive in Norway than other countries. Unlike MAGA, I am not deluding myself into thinking this policy gives us more jobs or a better economy.

Yet, I actually support these tariffs. Let me explain why. Norway is a country far north with poor climate and soil. Only 2.5% of Norway is arable land, compared to around 70% for Denmark, for instance. For hundreds of years, Norway has been unable to be self-sufficient in food. We have relied on trade to feed our population. But that is also a weakness. During the Napoleonic wars, Britain embargoed Norway and grain shipments could not get through. Norwegians starved.

This is why I believe every country must try to be close to self-sufficient in staple foods in case there is a crisis. And when COVID-19 hit, that actually proved true. There were countries that started getting problems with their food supplies. Norway functioned very well in this period because we had a very self-contained food production and processing industry.

So, yes, I end up paying more for food because of tariffs, but it also secures one of the most important goods that exist for any people. This is where Trump’s tariff logic differs radically. Trump is putting tariffs on toys, sneakers, clothes, and countless other objects from China. No country requires toys to survive. It doesn’t kill people to not have toys. Ergo, it is not of strategic importance to secure domestic toy production. Nor does a country have to produce their own shoes. Most people can manage quite fine for a long time without buying new shoes. You cannot survive without food for long.

So, I do in fact oppose chasing ever-expanding free trade, because I think every society has long-term interests that are not always served by chasing the lowest prices. Again, as a socialist, I see the needs of the people as the ultimate goal, not the short-term interests of the market.

It should be clarified that I am not rejecting the market outright, nor capitalism. Free-market capitalism has been a tremendous driver for wealth creation and innovation. But countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, and many more have shown that you can combine free markets with more socialist policies. It is all about being sensible. It is too easy to think Mao and Stalin are the only ways to be socialists. But remember, they were revolutionary communists. Social democrats, which represent the branch of socialism emphasizing democratic socialism, have had tremendous success all over Europe. Nowhere has what we would call a socialist society been created, but social democrats have managed to create a hybrid system that tempers the worst excesses of capitalism.

That is also a reason why social democrats all over Europe in the 1980s largely abandoned the socialist label. The oppressive East Bloc brought shame to that label, and frankly, workers didn’t care much anymore. The hybrid system we now call social democracy proved extremely successful and made most workers happy. They saw no need to move further.

This kind of sensible hybrid approach is the diametrical opposite of what MAGA is about. Social democrats did, e.g., not put tariffs on everything or nationalize every industry. They worked strategically. In Norway, government to a large degree controls our oil industry, hydropower, and has extensive ownership in banking, telecoms, and aviation. This is because these are sectors of important strategic interest and need a long-term perspective. A reckless finance industry can destroy a whole economy. Look what reckless greed and speculation in the banking sector did to America in 2008. If a toy store goes bankrupt, it does not undermine the whole economy of a country. Major banks collapsing does undermine the whole economy.

The other thing is that social democrats took a very long-term view on their policies. When Norway built up its oil industry to secure national control, we knew draconian rules would not work because we had no expertise on oil production. Instead, we made it possible for foreign companies to come in and invest. But we often did this by rewarding investment in Norway, encouraged industrial partnerships for knowledge transfer, and so on. Basically, we gave foreign oil companies this deal: You get to make big bucks on our resources, but in exchange we want part of your knowledge and expertise.

Above all, we had a long-term commitment to these policies, and they remained fixed. Compare that to Trump. His tariff policies change every week. Norwegian oil policy has remained extremely stable since the 1970s. Foreign companies know exactly what to expect and what framework they operate within. They can plan accordingly. The same applies to Norwegian agricultural policies. Tariffs are not jumping up and down like a yo-yo depending on the mood of the prime minister. For sure, our policies change. They have to, because society always is in flux. However, we do gradual changes that are announced in good time. We give business time to adjust.

And that is also what I believe as a socialist. If I somehow became an all-powerful dictator tomorrow, I would not completely change society the way Trump has over just months. While I think lots of things ought to change, I still believe in gradual change and I accept my own fallibility. That means I know I can get things wrong. This means I need to see various policies play out over some time before fully committing to them. Trump, in contrast, goes all in on extremely radical policies without even entertaining the possibility that he could be dead wrong.

Sensible Politicians are Often Forgotten

Socialists that I admire are people most foreigners would not know of, because when people do a good job they generally do not become as famous as those who do a terrible job. I admire Norwegian Prime Minister Einar Gerhardsen, who was an openly radical socialist. He ran Norway for around 17 years after WW2.

But most of you have instead heard of Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin. They are famous because they are terrible people causing the death of millions. Einar Gerhardsen didn’t kill anyone. He was fully committed to democracy and human dignity. That is sadly why most of you have never heard his name. What I admire about Gerhardsen is that, while he had a very radical goal, he strongly believed in gradualism—the idea that reaching this radical goal had to happen by smaller incremental changes and be firmly rooted in the popular will of the people.

Our propensity to remember the horrible people has left the false idea in the minds of many Americans that when socialists rule, it always ends in tyranny. It is because all the socialists who ruled for decades all over Europe without enacting tyranny are forgotten. They are not in your history books.

Many have suggested that, because of the tainted legacy of socialism due to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, nobody should call themselves that anymore. But democratic socialists have nothing to be ashamed of, IMHO. Communists certainly have a lot to be ashamed of, but democratic socialists have, in my humble opinion, a very proud history and legacy to point to.

Do we insist that nobody calls themselves capitalists because history is full of horrible people who were capitalists?

Here is where Fascism and Nazism differ from socialism. There is no such thing as democratic Fascism or democratic Nazism. Fascism as an ideology is inherently anti-democratic and oppressive. Something socialism is not. Democratic socialists have a proud history to show that demonstrates that we put humans and human dignity first. Fascism, in contrast, has always ended in misery and abuse.

And that is the similar issue as I see with MAGA. There is no such thing as a sensible version of MAGA. It is an inherently authoritarian and anti-scientific ideology.

While socialism can be reduced to a desire to put human needs above the market, MAGA is really just a hodgepodge of ideas which can be reduced to a set of angry grievances. Like Fascism, it is an ideology deeply centered on characterizing enemies and scapegoating. It is also inherently dogmatic. The leader is infallible. Trump is never wrong. Anyone speaking against Trump is just fake news. It doesn’t matter what your credentials or expertise is. No, Trump always knows better than the experts.

And we can see the same with Nazism. It was infamous for pursuing the most absurd pseudoscientific nonsense—anything from absurd race theories to bizarre alternative history, Atlantis, and the occult.

Italian writer Umberto Eco wrote that there is no underlying philosophy in Fascism. Fascism doesn’t have a philosophy as such, but a style. Trumpism is eerily similar. There is little logical consistency in Trumpism, just like in Fascism. But there is a very clear style. The way Trump goes about things. The way MAGA dress. The iconography and everything is very recognizable.

Fascism at its core is an ultranationalist form of ideology, and for that reason, it will look very different in every country as it will clothe itself in the mythology of whatever nation it arises in. That is why MAGA do not go around with brown shirts or wave swastikas (Hakenkreuz). Instead, all American symbols fill that role. Hence red MAGA caps, American flags, and pickup trucks become the iconography.

It is sad because an extremist movement is stealing a symbol many Americans love: the American flag. We know all about this process in my native Norway. The Nazis ruined a lot of our old Viking heritage because old Norse symbols became associated with Nazi ideology.

This is what Fascism does. It often takes parts of your culture and legacy that you love and corrupts it into something dark and vile. Sometimes it makes it almost impossible to take your heritage and symbols back. America is not there yet, but a time could come when you cannot wave an American flag without everyone thinking you signal an adherence to MAGAism.

I think this is what is so vile about these ideologies: they steal symbols everyone in a nation should be able to cherish and make them part of their ideology. By all means, make red caps and pickups the brand of your ideology, but never co-opt national symbols such as the flag of your nation or symbols such as the bald eagle.

Why is the Debate so Important?

When we debate politics, I think that ideally it should be about value choices. We should debate what kind of society we idealistically want. We should not have to debate what reality is.

Take global warming. Let us start by accepting it is real and that fossil fuel burning has to be reduced somehow. Politics should be about how to best do that, not about whether it is even happening.

Fortunately, here in Norway we still have a rational right-wing. The right-wing idea of how to solve global warming is not the same as the ideas of the left, and that is fine. Let us debate the merits of different approaches. I just wish we did not have to waste so much time debating reality itself.

Self-Criticism is Important

What I notice more than anything in the modern American media landscape is that there is very little corresponding to actual debate. There is a lot of attack ads and people just spewing out vitriol.

When journalists ask questions, it is all too often softball questions. You look at a news channel like Fox, and their mission seems to be how to make Trump look good rather than challenge him and do proper journalism.

This is what I find ironic: Fox News has always presented themselves as “fair and balanced.” They do not actually sell themselves as being a place for people with conservative viewpoints.

Here in Norway newspapers who will declare themselves as left-wing on the front page, will eagerly criticize left-wing governments. And I see journalists whether in TV or in newspapers who are well known leftist will still give hard hitting questions when interviewing left-wing politicians. And I believe this is quite common in Europe in general. It looks similar in Sweden to me and I can see similar behavior in UK media. Although I guess British Newspapers can be quite sensationalist and slanted.

Of course America being such a large country, does have plenty of media that try to do proper journalism and ask hard questions. I simply not that in particular on the right, there seems to have evolved a culture of only asking softball questions, and spend more news coverage attacking other media doing their job, instead of actually holding politician accountable.

My point is that radical politics should be acceptable as long as you are willing to subject yourself to criticism, and not dismiss anything in reality you don't like as "Fake News".