tv Joshua Muravchik Heaven on Earth CSPAN June 15, 2019 9:30am-10:56am EDT
we can do and the state of the world right now, which can feel very bleak is a call to idealism. if you are not an idealist now, does that mean one is prepared to accept the world as it is? i am certainly not. i think we can do better than we are doing right now. >> host: the education of an idealist, a memoir by ambassador samantha power comes out in september. this is a quick preview. you are watching booktv on c-span2. >> booktv continues on c-span2. in a minute, joshua muravchik looks at the rise, fall and reemergence of socialism around the world. >> that all starts now on booktv.
>> starting now on booktv, world affairs institute distinguished fellow joshua muravchik discusses the history and current popularity of socialism. >> thanks, jeff, thanks to charles for the hospitality. as jeff alluded to, this is quite an august group including any number of people who know as much about the subject as i do. i will do my best to leave plenty of time for give and take around the table. socialism is in the air right now but the book is first of all the history and i am going to quickly sketch the history
and then spend some minutes on what is happening today and then have a back and forth or around the table. the term socialism was coined in the 1820s or 30s by the followers of a small group of thinkers, british and french who were not out to overthrow government but had ideas of a better society of sharing and also had the quite good idea that the right way to get there was to demonstrate the validity of their ideas and they created, their followers created over a period, through the mid-1800s, 40 or 50 experimental communities mostly in the united states even
though these visionaries were europeans. why the united states? it is easy to get land. and because the social mores were more fluid. and in fact their ideas were taken tremendously seriously. perhaps the most important was robert owen who announced he was coming to the united states to try to create a community that would demonstrate the validity of his ideas. he was taken tremendously seriously. on his way he commissioned an architect to produce a scale model of the ideal social community he envisioned and it was put on display in the white house for several months in conjunction with his arrival and a joint session of congress
was convened to hear him present his ideas and not only did the congressman and senators listen but members of the supreme court and outgoing president monroe, incoming president-elect adams, all spent hours listening to the presentation and the community he set up was called new harmony. it was in indiana and almost instantly collapsed in disharmony. what happened at new harmony turned out to be representative of the whole group of these experiments, historians, communes say their median lifespan was two years before they went the way of new harmony.
it might have been an alternative imaginary history that the whole idea of socialism would have ended right there. been there, tried that, didn't work. but then it was taken up and given a more powerful life by this remarkable tagteam of political activists and philosophers of great power, marks and angles. they pulled off what has to go down as one of the great intellectual cons of all time. they were well aware of the results of these experiments with communes. angles in england participated in the owen group and wrote about it, went to their meetings. marx and engels said that doesn't matter. that is all utopian. any attempt to create socialism by acts of human will are
utopian. what is important is the laws of history, scientific socialism and these laws prove that socialism is coming. the reason i call it a con is, what is science? the heart of science is experimentation. they had this idea of a better society and they conducted experiments to demonstrate the validity which sadly was not demonstrated but they were real scientific socialist. marx and angles say experimentation is no good. we have seen the future and they share prophecy but they did it in the name of science.
the prophecy was very compelling, people found it convincing, the second half of the 19th century socialist parties grew up mostly of marxist stripe or heavily under the influence of marxism and became major forces in countries all over europe. but there was a problem. 50 years after the communist manifesto marx and engels, the leading intellectual disciple, the air, edward bernstein, observed the prophecy wasn't coming true. the core of the laws of history was workers were going to grow constantly more miserable until they would be compelled to create the revolution that would usher in the new age but there had been no revolution 50 years later, no sign of
revolution and bernstein said there has been no revolution because the prediction was wrong. the situation with workers hasn't gotten worse, it has gotten better. it has steadily improved. he may have been better positioned to register that because unlike marx and angles and most other socialist leaders bernstein was a proletarian family and much more attuned to changes in their standard of living so bernstein gave up on socialism. what he said is the final goal of socialism means nothing to me but the movement means everything. what did he mean by that? socialism had come to a kind of fork in the road. the prediction that the workers
would make the revolution had not been confirmed. you stick with the workers or stick with the revolution but couldn't have both. bernstein said i will stick with the workers. the movement is everything, he would continue to work for legislation for shorter hours, better pay, what have you but forget this image of creating a new society. the opposite choice was made by lenin who was in siberia, he read bernstein, he was infuriated. lennon was always infuriated by something. that was his frame of mind. he was infuriated but didn't disagree with the premise of bernstein. the workers are not making the revolution, they are not going to make the revolution but then nevermind the workers, we must have the revolution. we will have someone make it in their name, a military
organization. he insisted this would embody the workers, but this was purely mystical. despite its illogic, it succeeded. it succeeded in taking power in russia at a time when russia was falling apart and lenin said power was lying in the street and i just picked it up. that changed everything. suddenly despite the predictive failure of what workers were going to do, suddenly the marks angles prophecy seemed to be confirmed in the most dramatic way. socialism was in power in a big important country. russia was 6% or 7% of the population of the world around the sense that history had a
direction, that it was moving from the old system of capitalism to the new shining future seem to be confirmed and the result was socialism was put on the map of the world politically like it hadn't been to that moment. for one thing there were communist parties that grew up virtually in every corner of the world trying to emulate lenin. they split from existing socialist parties but the socialist parties even though they lost members to communists were themselves energized and invigorated by the conviction that they were the future. or as they often put it, the future is clearly going to be socialism. you can pick the bad harsh socialism of lenin or the be 9 socialism we have to offer but
you don't have any other choice. and then there was fascism which was an offshoot of socialism. both italian and german varieties. but fascism quickly brought about the second world war. that spelled the end of fascism but in the aftermath of the second world war the other forms of socialism grew even more and socialism spread around the world. communism, thanks to the red army in eastern europe, north korea, there were some indigenous movement that took power, a few years later china,
much of indochina. ultimately a third of the human race, was living under communist regimes but the democratic socialists were achieved successes in the decades after world war ii that they never achieved before, they form governments on their own with no coalition partners, minor coalition partners in an attempt to pursue their path to socialism and there was a whole new branch of the socialist tree in the aftermath of world war ii that was in the new nations that were born through decolonization.
african socialism, almost all these new nations embraced some kind of socialism. it tended to be a milan of social democracy, communism, fascism, strong men wanting power and this was the way to go, the way to describe themselves and by the time we get to the mid 70s we have a situation in which it seems right that upwards of 60% of the population of the world was living under governments of one kind or another calling themselves socialist but then the pendulum began to swing back for reasons that were
important but not very clear why. through the 70s, the change in portugal was a significant moment even though communists were a hair's breadth from taking power they were defeated but the forces that defeated them were led by the socialist party of portugal so it wasn't exactly a defeat for socialism but was a trigger to the third wave of democratization which greatly weakened the force of communism around the world and in 78 we had the third plenum of the communist party, china, with the rise of ping and the second revolution which the communist party came to power as it does to this day, a
shift, the free market economics and thatcher a year later, a platform that she was out to kill socialism as she put it into the 80s gorbachev and the end of the soviet union and in the 80s the taking on board of the lessons of the four dragons of east asia that were flourishing while all the rest of the third world had stagnated for 20 years under state led planning for economic growth. so there was a turn in the third world away from socialism. at that point i wrote the first edition of this book is a kind of epitaph. the story was over. socialism has been tried
everywhere in every conceivable way and had either failed, social democrats in europe pulled back from socialism and contented themselves with creating welfare states and that was a wrap. then this thing somehow, phoenix like, has risen from the grave before our eyes. my first thought as i watched this was marks's comments on luis, napoleon, history repeats itself the first time is tragedy and the second time as farce. venezuela, this rising phoenix first appeared with the election of chavez in 98 turned out to be both a tragedy and a
farce and the country has been destroyed by chavez, maduro regime. at first chavez was revolutionary, anti-american didn't declare himself a socialist but we in cuba are pursuing the same revolution, he said coined the slogan socialism or death which turned out not to be either or and we see the result of that but even this tragic farcical repeat of so much of the history of communism in third world socialism we see eyes in britain and america gazing upon
this in rapture. reminds me of the scene in a midsummer night's dream where the enchanted person looks on the bottom with the head of an ass and says how beautiful. so we see both the rise of corbin and of sanders. let me spend a few words on each of them. many at this moment of the apologists for the new socialism say don't tarnish this with venezuela, we're not talking about venezuela, nothing to do with venezuela. set aside sanders, corbin,
about the great contributions of chavez and at least for a time he was in bed with maduro too, went on television shows in venezuela as a guest and maduro and aoc and her colleagues in that wing have been resistant even now to criticizing maduro, although they are not endorsing him. they changed the conversation to what trump is doing or shouldn't do and can't bring themselves to do a clear condemnation of maduro. corbin has gotten heat mostly for his anti-semitism.
>> all the viewers know who bernie sanders is, may know who corbin is but some may not. >> jeremy corbin is now the leader of the british labour party. and with the conservative party in disarray over brexit it is possible the labour party will win an election and he will become prime minister. it is only part, all for the good, only part of the story. on the anti-semitism there was a time when it was possible for
a fair-minded observer to be passionately anti-israel, anti-zionist but not anti-jews but we had one thing and then another and now a third, to make - an untenable explanation. the one thing, his endorsement of the mural showing jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of enslaved dark skinned whatever, workers, slaves. then we had the clip of his saying although they've lived among us for a long time they don't get british iron he. he was referring to zionists but who have lived among us for a long time, linguistically doesn't work. he was talking about jews and then just now it was just
recently someone found he had written an extremely laudatory blurb to gloss the real issue of hoffman's imperialism, which treats imperialism as a jewish conspiracy led by the house of rothschild. it is too many instances to just say he is against the iron is him but there is something else here. he is -- he is immersed in a world of stalinism. when i use that term, i don't
mean he was a member of the communist party but he was a columnist for the communist party newspaper, the daily worker of england changed its name to the morningstar in the 60s or 70s but was funded by moscow and that is his newspaper. and he surrounded himself with shamus mill and andrew murray and others who not only come from the communist world, but communists were divided in britain between the communist party of britain and the communist party of great britain. these were two rival factions to the point being one faction
was pro-gorbachev and before that pro-euro communist in the other faction were hardliners who most presented stalin and this was called the straight left group and corbin's circle of advisers comes from this hard-line communist group, called them the tankys who supported the soviet invasion of hungary. and corbin -- the prospect of corbin, never mind whether he will create socialism but if he becomes prime minister of england it is going to be something very painful for jews, but also it is impossible
for me to see how the us british security cooperation can continue if he were to become the prime minister of england. then we had bernie sanders, who is not the same thing as corbin, who calls himself a democratic socialist which is what i and some others around the table used to call ourselves. but is he? you can see on youtube sanders in the 1980s really waxing eloquent at length about the wonders of the sandinista regime in nicaragua and regurgitating sandinista propaganda, claim for claim, line for line, with great
assertiveness and won't nation of anyone who would disagree. and doing the same for the claim accomplishments of castro in cuba and even to coin a honeymoon in the soviet union is coming back and giving a press conference in which he didn't wax as eloquent as he did about nicaragua but in which the thrust of what he had to say was the great things he had seen in the soviet union in terms of public transport and especially in terms of their cultural programs that they had made available to the people at a very low price. yet you may have seen in the new york times yesterday, a reporter who was asking him about this said is there anything you said about the soviet union or latin america back in the 1980s that you
think differently about today? and he said no. so what kind of socialism he actually believes in the seems to me is way up in the air. last point. sometimes he says scandinavia. more often it is apologists for sanders. they are filling the op-ed columns, when i say socialism don't really mean it. sanders and ocasio cortez are so inarticulate they can't explain themselves but they don't really mean socialism at all. they mean social democracy like scandinavia. aside from the fact that these people aren't so inarticulate, what is wrong with that line of argument is there is a scandinavian even model that
involves a much larger public sector than we have in the us but the public sector rests on thriving capitalist engines of growth as well. if you look at world banks, world bank puts out each year he's of doing business index, rates all the countries in the world, denmark is in third of fourth place. and this year's index, they make a congenial atmosphere for capitalists to do their thing. and a very rich set of social welfare benefits but the thrust of everything sanders and aoc
covers is angrily anti-capitalist. aoc says capitalism is irredeemable. sanders's whole stick is billionaire class oligarchy has taken over our country and a laminating democracy. .. their billionaire 4 million or. [laughter] that's how he became a millionaire himself. my point is the ideas they are harboring on a completely different spirit in scandinavian social democracy. >> i will stop the and everyone
else can get in. >> thinking that was a tropic introduction. congratulations on the new addition to the book. let me state or restate on c-span this meeting in washington, d.c. and i'm the editor-in-chief. i'm cohosting with charles davidson, founder and publisher. the book is called heaven on earth, the rise in afterlife of socialism is the title. it was first published in 2002 and we been addition the 2019 and i want to ask you first question which is why did you write the book? >> the book was originally seems
ia tremendous part in socialism is a big idea that shaped the 20th century but also it was an idea that i was entirely immersed in. i grew up in home were socialism was outside of the family and my parents eyes. and i myself became interviewed with this and spent years of my life from the time i was 15 to 30 i was devoted and active socialism. in fact i joined the young people league is, the senior release interested. i was in high school new york
and he was in college in chicago. >> i will open it up to one second period thank you for explaining your background in relationship to the subject. i don't recall the year but do you recall you wrote an essay for crisis titled why a marxist throws in the towel? to remember the article? >> i did not write the title of the article. way back in the 80s there were something called the second thoughts movement and it was meetings of some young radicals of the 60s who had rethought
their views of the world and a lot of the other people involved were much more radical than i had been. but i thought of myself as a radical in my socialist days. and what led me too change was something that happened gradually. the first thing was initially i was always anti-communist but initially i had a view that there is too bad alternatives in the road the capitalist west and communist east. and i can imagine something better than either one but with reading and thinking i came to realize that it was a mistake to
equate th that communism was intimately more horrible than whatever was wrong with democratic capitalism. so i started to find a lot of my energy was devoted to fighting against the communism which is quite realism substantial back then. and i was decreasingly interested in fighting and capitalism. in the also open me to thinking further about economics and i did observe some of the democracies. and i noticed whether scandinavia or israel were the labour party or socialist party, and i noticed none of them ever
created socialism in the imaginary idea of a new human brotherhood. so i realized it became a matter of you what that were this and how much government spending and this became very practical issues rather than the millenarian idea that i had that the society could be replaced by something intimately better. >> thinking. what i would like to do i would like to open it up. i would like to try to take two or three at a time. before a good everybody, i'm going to look at the side of the room because we have four younger colleagues, to who come
from the united states and one from ukraine and one from india. just curious how you come from such a matter of the argument. you all don't have to speak. every your hand was up first. then we will open up to the whole table, two or three in each row. >> i'm avery james. who are you sitting next to to writeyou're right? [inaudible] and incuriou[inaudible question]
like china and russia with ukraine. it was nonindustrial problems. but i guess my question, i want to ask today so many young socialist point to the scarcity of healthcare in such an increasing inequality shows growth of capitalism. due by the explanation or do you think there's something else? >> i would like to collect a couple more. >> tell us who you are. >> i'm nick, i am a lawyer and
historian. >> and i occasional contributor if the confirmation is very important. he was sent back by the german government to moscow with 9 tons of gold. you from my a lot of resolution, you can look it up in the history of the russian government. >> let me take two more. then will close it and continue. [inaudible question]
>> let's take one more. that is you curl in the will come back to the others. >> thank you i'm carl. and my question is about the rebound and using the term inequality was first time the word inequality, jumping over the last 700, 800 years democracy has been advancing its almost inedible and confidential. it is concerned with how do you protect liberty and democracy is advanced in that way. just last week i saw a piece henry of the
policies stanford and was talking about how to make america great again in houston conservatives have to address the issue of equality. because that is what is feeding a lot of this. and you don't want to get into the issue of nationalism populist and patriotism and people shapiro very comfortable with. it's pro who we are. the issue of equality is the same way. you do not want to give -- you have to adjust his problems otherwise the people who don't share your values are going to take advantage of it and how do you do that in the current context?
[laughter] why the rebirth, the answer is i don't know why. i do think that we have been through a stretch of time of increasing disparity of incomes and increasing equality and you can see various figures gone from some 30 to one to 301 depending on what you're comparing. but there is no question that this is a trend of the last 40 years or something. it is not a good trend.
it was especially worrisome until a couple years ago not only was disparity but when they were stagnating and coming in lower than the past seconds before it was not just any quality but the people at the lower were moving downward and nothing moving upward according to the official data. that is begun to turn around in the last couple of years and people at the bottom are not raising as fast as the people at the top. but still the raising which may take some of the edge office. as of the reason for the rebirth of interest in socialism?
it certainly intuitively but it doesn't make it true. i just don't know. one thing has to bring us a little short the following the hypothesis is the people who i think were probably hurting from the stagnation seem to be mostly trump voters. they're not bernie aoc supporters and it seems of course for these neo- socialist comes as for radicalism where you and i were young and younger more affluent people.
it is a big question and i agree it needs to be addressed but i'm not sure of the causality here as for aaron's question about entry is in. entry is entry is going forth n their own name they should join larger more moderate socialist parties were they could leverage more impact and i'm little doubt in my mind that he is an
interest and he will believe in a more radical thing and was to join the labour party i can't figure out the aoc. sanders has a really odd history. he joined young people the same year i did. which is a democratic socialist group but before that according to his biographer he was first attracted to bolson as and works for a communist dominated and went to israel that was affiliated with pro stolen in
pro soviet and then he was in the democratic world and then the presence biographer in vermont was in the lector and even sought the vice presidential nomination of the socialist workers party. i'm sure people were not emerged in the world of socialism of marxism will find this quite obscure but between the socialist and economist, each one hated the other two. i've never heard before of someone involved themselves in all three. so what could make of his ideological project tree is beyond me. >> what's good to the next round let me call him veronica and
>> reasons for the appeal and with the socialist idea is more wearable. of a radical and a big aspiration. it is generally kinder world. less people along the way in the 20 century who were really seized by the blueprint receives but aspiration. and one thing is the opponents. they routinely would dam anything in socialism from the united states we had the civil
rights movement. medicare deemed a socialism. just recently we had obama's affordable care act which is hashed by the socialist heritage foundation condemned as socialist. so, just a quick word of path, to what extent is the looseness of socialism opponent of condemning everything of socialism set up the socialist renaissance? >> did you say -- >> and brent lindsay. >> patrick are you on deck to speak or make it, or question? >> so for gestures talked about socialism into countries that don't have a very strong -- my
[inaudible] >> let's take one more this round. if you stand up i think the camera might be able to capture you for c-span. tell us who you are and maker, or question. >> i'm aaron. my question/comment is imagine a one point the factionalism was a part of socialism. and i'd like to elaborate on that because is an obvious and said that's true and they can all come to agree on the economy. but another sense is not true is that socialism springs forth from the enlightenment
assumption. in the quality into the day to emancipate everyone whereas fascism is a more military ideology that projects a whole language of individual emancipation. and it's a conscious for both against that. my question is, what do you think of the hypothesis and secondly, didn't part of the reason that socialism is in certain ways less -- >> thank you.
>> all look back on aaron's question. yes, you can certainly see the enlightenment and socialist ideas and the way you cannot involve. and the pastor's ideas. the enlightenment was thrown out the window by letter. when she got a decent military style to revolutionary in the system based on the mass murder, you cannot see the groups of the enlightenment at least not very clearly anymore and i was also not focused structurally but historically. fascism grew out of socialism
and muzzling was one of the first red diaper babies. in the biographer with to the family. i could see reading it to my children to put them to sleep. [laughter] he was one of the top leaders of the socialist party of italy at the point that he became pro or into this point he had a great insight in the insight as he said at the time was socialism will have to take account of nation as well as class. and this was -- as he said a heresy, and mark said the
workingmen has no country. class is all important variable. 1914 really blew that to smithereens even though a lot of socialist refused to acknowledge it. but the two sought pretty clearly with mos most illini ter to create a new socialism that substituted a nation for class and in many ways he and hitler both model themselves on linen. hitler when he took over, they made mayday and national holiday and members address each other as connor, they put the economy on a plan basis so they could be
faster than stalin for your plan as opposed to a five-year plan and of course hitler invested the volkswagen, the people's car. so they were all these reminders of the socialist roots but this brings me to patrick's question which is what we've seen to some extent among socialist or on the left in general is a recapitulation of most illini is in. and the idea that we want to see a right to struggle of what isaiah berlin color, the sheep against the goats. defendant by them at into
nationality. in the subordination of the ones of the retrograde ones and i think we see that here and identity politics in the european context which we're describing of the socialist parties that i've lost support but trying to merge themselves with activity movements. in europe, is the popularity of socialism stoked by all the readiness of conservatives in the socialist to dam a socialist if politics come along? maybe. i don't know, you could do a
public opinion survey but i have not seen one. i don't know. and i'm afraid this technology, back to your question, does technology have something to do with the rebirth, of course have no idea but i would suggest one way in which it seems to be maybe it is is it seems to me today people read tweets and not books and there is, i wonder i haven't seen surveys on this either. but i wonder if there is just less knowledge of history then there was at one moment before we got everything in tweets and blogs in small digestible chunks. >> thinking. we are going to take another round and maybe two.
and i think while you're waiting, were gonna go here for so. >> because of the u.s. separation powers to percy a profound break with mainstream policies changes can happen but not a profound. i guess my question is what is the risk if not just a coalition government, amount to the majority that they could proceed
in profound chambers which would have major obstructions in the whole system. >> thinking. [inaudible question. we have any populism and is somewhat conceptual in italy in hungary and poland. the difference between all of them, the russians, hungarians, progressions, there is this attempt to get together that they are working so hard to achieve with the new populist nationalist international. the other hand, you have the
socialist in spain and the conservative one. as far as a socialist country which strikes me as strange, even reading, i cannot pronounce his name correctly. but the writer of the new book, the socialist manifesto is out. he is the editor and founder of the magazine. in the book is somewhat naughty but the striking thing about the book, he has read everything, he is read history, all of the major socialist theories, the new ones, old ones, he goes to the whole history, and he knows all the stuff and he still comes around to the idea that nothing is going to work except real socialism and when he presents to the bunkhouse going to work his ideas are naughty,
off-the-wall. but he condemns in the book that bernie sanders is a sellout in a social democratic, i must socialism and why do people follow bernie. so these people consider themselves to the left of bernie sanders as real socialism. today i was reading the polls and there's a big article about the head of the youth division and berlin germany who is a real socialist. he says we need real socialism, not social democracy, we have to move away from the old synergies of social democracy moved to socialism in the memes of production and goes on and on. he is not an extremist like corban but in terms of the solution it is real socialist which they're coming back to they come down to say we will
structured this way and it was hours of work. we cannot distort it. thank you. let's go to steve. >> i'm steve from public policy of the wilson center. i was the editor of the wilson editor. to me it's a spectacle to see what is on the american left, so called socialist today. in the solitary in various ways. it's repeating all the things and the attraction or apology for authoritarian regimes, certainly it's a mistake -- there are explanations you might
offer and certainly slogans to the left but i wonder what weather you see this as a failed attraction treated as an bread? >> sure. repeating in all mistake, that is why they are so disheartening. i would like to see the young people come up with new ideas and make their own mistakes. why do they have to repeat mine and my parents and my grand parents. and that's the point, this thing has been tried before. it is been tried over roughly six generations or at least a couple of centuries. it's been tried at every corner of the world. it is been tried in every
different way that people can imagine and it is never work. it is often created catastrophe and taken countless lives. at his best it became a vehicle for modest reform or large reforms of capitalist economy. but that is why i guess i would rather believe that these people are not reading history rather that the reading and say that's a russian roulette will be like the early generations. that is what socialism is
referring to. of the younger generation saying they want real socialism, they don't mean communism and they don't mean to do what they did and venezuela and so on. but actually real socialism was tried by the non- authoritarian socialist, social democratic parties of western europe. and i see patrick shaking his head, one of the examples was -- who came to a big majority in the platform was a complete break of capitalism. he began, this is in the early
'80s and he began to implement this in the economy started coughing and sputtering so badly that within a year they announced the complete phase, and ensure your program and the chairman of the socialist party said we are bringing a reconciliation between the left and the economy. whichever form, i honor the democratic socialist in a don't put that in the same basket with the commonest killers and it did do some things that made a kinder and gentler society. but they did that by
acknowledging what they could do socialism. two what if. it's big and we have a prime minister corban will they really enact my guess is that they will try but this too we have seen before a finer individual and tried this in the late 40s and they built up the british welfare state and the attempt to socialize the economy by
nationalizing history but it did not have the results they expected and where the industry struggled more of nationalist. and that brings back the other point that i alluded to recording is selected, it would mainstream tremendously painful. it's more about what it would do to the structure that has kept the world peace and we have for good reason worried about what trump is doing with his
dismissive attitude tornado orcharboard nato.it is worth ree most important in my mind is not the united nations but what was nato which has been the main bow work of the piece in the cold war. but post-cold war, people don't know or forget that nato was an idea that spring from the british labor party, the person who first came up with an idea was foreign minister right after the war. it is hard for me too see how
nato could endure a corban presidency. corban has a long record because nato a frankenstein monster, he regards nato as the main threat to world peace. and of course, in this moment, i don't necessarily mean that or think that anymore, or whatever. but that is what he means and thanks it would be madness for the united states to maintain cooperation with the british government headed by corban or military planning. and so, these structures have already been weakened thanks to the u.s. side but they might be
fatally weakened if corban becomes prime minister. >> final thoughts, final-round? >> i'm a professor at the university. i was not planning to say anything today and just read your book and listen to the discussion. but when you mentioned morning, when i was a teenager in high school in poland -- it was more radical than polish. [laughter] it was very official. when you meant to corban, i hope you'll be able to introduce the system.
but i was learning english from the british party. and since reading the warnings. [laughter] i left other socialism are social democracy so it was officially called socialist democracy. so the only thing i wanted to say when i lived in this country when i was 19 teaching at the university as also many students of my impersonated by marxist theories and practical theories. i just want to say i don't
understand it. after living to the system i know it is my fault that i'm one-sided, unprejudiced but i cannot know or feel any sympathy to anyone who like socialism or introduces socialism and thanks that socialism may change capitalism. i am not any radical but i lived through all this and i'm so skeptical about spending any pro socialist thinking in them not any kind of radical conservative proponent. so i did not want to give it a
statement that i wanted to explain why i didn't want to say anything because when you go through this in its most radical form, i was born in 1962. it was already in our system. but that is something i just wanted to say. for me it is very difficult to understand how you may be interested in introducing any kind of socialism. in scandinavian model is something really different. in the scandinavian model is a unique thing, as a westward state of the capitalist system with a very -- i'm sorry i don't
have a question. >> the comment was helpful in clear. thank you. michael and then john. >> and from the american council and trustee alumni and this is a quick one, every year we do a survey of the curriculum requirements of 1100 colleges and universities. just over 3% require that undergraduates to take any basic course of economics and less than 80% it takes a basic course on the united states. i think the connection of ignorance and bad policy. >> my name is john and i'm from
the freedom liberty. this is a brief comment in a brief question. my comment is what do you think about some of the things sincere people that don't like and how to solve a problem. so for example many years ago i was an exchange student in venezuela, 1966 to 1967. i took spanish courses with the local university of caracas and i see a great deal of poverty in venezuela and there was a great prosperity and i thought this is a ticking time bomb. and they took a course of
sociology course and there is a self proclaimed course. he did not have a clue as to what marxism stood for. he could not define it. all he knew was in his mind in alternative to what he saw in venezuela at the time. now, to the question. into our speaker and thank you for your presentation i look forward to reading your book. the senses if you were to ask people the average american what is socialism you get a wide range of answers and some say it's the famous economist. they don't really have a clear understanding of what socialist is. you said that you called yourself a democratic socialist at one time but you no longer are. so my question is what is a democrat socialist and why you no longer consider yourself a
democratic socialist? >> we are back to the beginning, that's the way life works. josh go ahead. >> when i in a couple other people who are here called ourselves democratic socialist my point was the contest to communist that it was communist dictatorship and we shared an idea they could have a different kind of economy without private property where everything was owned communally or shared in some sense. but all to be achieved by a democratic state, by passing laws and commencing people to
do. [inaudible question. >> basically. and that is why i find what sanders says today to reaffirm his praise, something different to the democratic socialism that we believe. we were very far-reaching in terms of our imagining a different economy but we were also very strict in assisting everything had to be done democratically and in that also meeting that we executed other regimes around the world that called themselves socialist but were dictatorships.
we had no somebody for any of them unlike sanders which i gradually got a different understanding of economics. so it seemed to me even though i am proud we were always democrats and never deviated from that. but i think my ideas about economics were imaginary in the economy might work without private property without the incentives that go with it. last thought to the ambassador, i think maybe the difference in the newspapers that you read was because the people who were writing those newspape newspapet
believe in the system versus what they really do believe. >> last thing, may i think jeff, charles, i very much valued you hosting here. this is a very a group and i'm honored and flattered that all of your here. >> this is a fabulous group. i want to thank all of you. c-span, thank you very much. this is the book, heaven on earth, rise and fall and lingering persistence, rebirth, regeneration and socialist ideas and on behalf of the american interest, here is the american interest you can read us and visit us. josh, good luck with intellectual combat, you have your hands full and it's good you're doing what you're doing.
[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2. with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. book tv, television for serious readers. >> this weekend watch the author interview program "after words" with cnn chief white house correspondent jim acosta. also this weekend tv and radio host mark clement takes a good look at media and how they maintain their longtime marriage opposing political views. and we sit down with federal officers the preview the forthcoming books including