So you say you saw a Nevada commie, eh?

Happy Saturday. Trump has been going through one of his stages where he calls people communists a lot, which prompted me to ponder socialism, communism, and Nevada politicians. My off the cuff mini-essay might be a bit far afield, so I've pasted it below, for those so inclined to look at it. Meanwhile I'm starting this weekend’s newsletter with the stories we published in the Current this week we wouldn't want you to miss:

Jen — Rural NV counties especially vulnerable to Hoover Dam hydropower decline

Michael — DHS stiffing NV legislators’ questions about what judge ruled ‘open defiance,’ state senator says

Dana — ‘Democrats for Lombardo’ might say more about the Dems on the list than Lombardo, expert says

April — Lawmakers balk at Nevada OSHA push to weaken job safety standards

Leilah — Clark County commissioners hear push for data center moratorium but take no action

Tiffany Stoik commentary: The Mamdani moment and the faux war of ideas in Nevada

Paulette Stauffer Henriod commentary — Nevadans voted for more renewable energy, not more natural gas

***

Now, about all those commies in our midst...

As you may have observed, Trump of late has taken ye olde red scare card down from the shelf and dusted if off, and is calling Democrats "communists." He's done it before of course. This latest round comes after some folks who belong to an organization with "democratic socialists" in its name won some elections.

There might have been a time in the late 1980s when I had at least a little familiarity with varied strains of communism and socialism. History major, you see. I've forgotten a lot of it of course. But one thing I remember is they're not monolithic — folks who call themselves socialists and/or communists have always disagreed among themselves.

And they still do.

The World Socialist Web Site describes itself as "the online publication of the world Trotskyist movement, the International Committee of the Fourth International, and its affiliated sections in the Socialist Equality Parties around the world."

I typed Mamdani in the WSWS search field, confident I'd quickly find what I was looking for — a  spirited broadside against New York City's mayor, launched from well to his left. Here's a passage from the piece I clicked, which was published after last month's primary in New York:

Mamdani laid out his conception of “democratic socialism” in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program on Sunday. Asked what democratic socialism means, Mamdani answered that it “at the heart is pragmatic, because if we cannot deliver for working people, then what is this for? I’m interested in delivering.” He waved away the party centrists’ manifesto, saying he had no interest in writing one or reading one.

He offered his own mayoralty as an illustration of the meaning of socialism. “We don’t have to ask ourselves what life looks like if a socialist wins,” he said. “I won last November, and over the course of these last six months, what we’ve delivered for working people are the very things we were told were impossible.” The proof he cited: free childcare for two-year-olds, refunds to overcharged tenants, 165,000 potholes paved, and “the lowest recorded crime in our city’s history.”

This is a definition of socialism designed to empty it of content. To call socialism “pragmatic,” to abjure all “manifestos” in the interests of “concrete results,” is to insist that nothing needs to be analyzed: not the source of the oligarchy’s wealth, not the class character of the state, not the nature of the Trump administration, not the forces driving the world toward dictatorship and war. The system is accepted as a permanent framework within which a sympathetic official manages potholes and rents.

A Mamdani defender might counter that the analysis the author finds wanting does in fact exist and is manifest in what Mamdani is doing. But this isn't about defending Mamdani, and I've no interest in taking sides in leftist debates (not this morning anyway ha ha), but rather just showing that they exist.

That WSWS piece was written by the national secretary of the Socialist Equality Party in the United States — a group which is definitely not to be confused with the Democratic Socialists of America.  The DSA, the author writes, was...

...founded by Michael Harrington on the principle that socialists should constitute “the left wing of the possible”—the word possible meaning the Democratic Party. Over the past four decades of this strategy of “realignment,” the Democrats have shifted even further to the right, towing the DSA alongside with them.

Trump knows that over those four decades, and over the prior four that make up his long life for that matter, successfully labeling U.S. political opponents as communists, while almost never true (communists are vanishingly rare on the U.S. political scene), has worked as a powerful and effective cheap shot. And Trump loves few things more than taking cheap shots.

But what does Trump actually think communism means?  It's a pointless question of course. Trump thinks all the words mean whatever he wants them to mean when he says them, and then the same words mean something entirely different later, if he decides they do.

To reiterate, I've forgotten a lot about Marx, the history of socialism and communism, and schisms therein.

But I remember enough to assure you with confidence that no matter what Trump or Nevada Republicans claim, if fairly and honestly placed on an ideological spectrum, every Democratic candidate for Congress or statewide office on the Nevada ballot would fall solidly in the neighborhood of democratic capitalism, and very, very far away from communism.

Acceptance and support of an all-powerful central government that exerts command and control over states and industries while disregarding the rule of law has been associated with self-described communist regimes since the early 20th century. But it's not what Marx and Engels (or Trotsky) were talking about.

So measuring by historical communist ideals instead of the grotesque corruption of those ideals under Stalinist or Maoist totalitarianism, it would be unfair to say Republican congressional and statewide candidates would be closer to communism than democratic capitalism on an ideological spectrum.

Placing those Nevada Republicans closer to authoritarianism than democratic capitalism on the spectrum would be more precise.

Good luck