If you don't like socialism, then your complaint should be with Republicans who overplay "socialism"

[ck4829]

Not wanting to get shot in school is not socialism, but it is according to Republicans.

Buying stuff before a snowstorm is not socialism, but it is according to this Republican.

Even ensuring that everyone has access to good medical care is not necessarily socialism, but a smart public health policy and it wouldn't make sense to even have public health if there was a segment of your population that couldn't access basic medical care just because of cost.

To me, it seems more and more like Republicans call something "socialism" or call someone a "socialist" not because of that person or object having anything to do with socialism, but because they want to have a unified opposition to this noun and this is the perfect label to make this noun 'other' to them... and it's wearing out fast.

So I would say if you're a conservative Democrat, centrist, center left, or on the left but don't like socialism; your enemy is not the socialist, but rather the Republican who calls everything they don't like with that label.

[Vinca]

1. Republicans consider everything that doesn't involve giving stuff to the 1% socialism.

[mindem]

2. They hate the idea of a level playing field

Anything that denotes even a whiff of fairness for everyone doesn't fit into their plans. The word "socialism" is easy to throw around to scare people. They always try to control the language whether it's true or not.

[HopeAgain]

3. Then again, socialism is not a bad word

I proudly consider myself a Democratic Socialist. Does that scare people?

[Demsrule86]

5. Sure it does ( not me)...and if the GOP use socialism to smear us, it could cost us elections

an irony...the Putin party crying socialism.

[HopeAgain]

15. Two very popular politicians

Sanders and AOC are not afraid of using that word. Maybe we shouldn't be so afraid of it.

[Demsrule86]

18. It is my opinion that neither of those mentioned could win a general presidential election.

Notice the GOP has already begun their campaign. Of course AOC is too young at the moment. You need a big tent...someone who would appeal to moderates (look at the Senate and consider we don't have direct elections) and Progressives and Independents as well.

[JonLP24]

46. AOC is slaying the GOP

Forcing many to delete their own tweets that is how bad it is. I say give her your best shot.

As far as Presidential elections go most of it is really a personality contest rather than policy based and progressive proposals enjoy solid approval polling.

They called Obama a Socialist and late in his second term they accused him of installing a Kenyan Muslim Marxist dictatorship (Jade Helm).

[Demsrule86]

49. That is simply untrue. There is a reason why Mitch McConnell is holding a vote on the Green

thing. It is an issue that will divide Democrats and give the GOP a means to attack supporters. Since this bill has no shot at being passed, it should never have; been put on the House floor. We need a big tent to win statewide or national elections. AOC is remarkable but can not win such races. You need someone who can appeal to both moderates and liberals. What we need is a 50 state effort akin to Howard Deans efforts-a big tent approach. We will have moderates to deal with and won't get it all but without a majority, we get nothing. It is natural to believe that everyone agree with you...but deceiving. If we look at the Senate, we can see that we have a center left electorate. Thus our candidate must appeal to centrist as well as liberals. I don't seen AOC at this stage being able to accomplish this. I sincerely hope in the years to come, we move the country left. But for now, we need to concentrate on winning anyway we can.

[JonLP24]

50. Most non voters and young voters tend to be more liberal

We don't need a Republican or a third way Dem every time for President. They just end up pissing off both sides and costing Democrats in the long run. It wasn't progressives that lost the 2016 election and Sanders polled 10 points higher than Trump and won those key states.

Like AOC says you expand the electorate.

[Demsrule86]

54. The electorate needs to be expanded before we put a such a candidate up. Look at the Senate. The

electorate is not expanded. As for 16, yes the Stein who are progressive voters cost us the election...and some stayed home. I looked at JPR...progressive folks with some infiltration. One JPR person who still posts here by the way... said he would vote for Trump if the election was close in a mid west state and Stein if it was not. ..had Hillary had those voters, she would have won. We need to win. Now is not the time for running left...a candidate who can carry progressives and moderate such as Biden or Brown is best at the top of the ticket. We win with big tent candidates. This election is crucial.

[HopeAgain]

55. Many long-term members of the Party

simply don't get this. I have a politically involved 30 year old son. He's in touch with the young and non-voters and would confirm exactly what you are saying. People want change, some want it so badly, they thought Trump coming in and blowing things up might not be such a bad thing. I'm not saying I agree with that, but putting up another centrist (or "third way" if you want to rile up a lot of people on here) seems like the definition of insanity to me - doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.

If the Democrats win the Presidency with a centrist, it will be because of Trump, not because the party is expanding, which would leave us in the same position we were in in 2016.

[WeekiWater]

41. And neither one are socialists. I find that to be very interesting.

AOC comes much closer to it than Sanders, when her statements are considered.

[HopeAgain]

44. I have seen Sanders

identify himself as a "Democratic Socialist." There's that boogey-word that's supposed to scare everybody.

[WeekiWater]

45. It's self branding.

Like many things socialism takes on many variations. I like people becoming more comfortable with the word "socialist". We aren't going to become a socialist society but the current American mindset will benefit if people become comfortable with it. In America it almost means regulating capitalism and government takeover of very limited industries in order to protect all of the people, not just some. I think that is a good thing. I don't mind hanging my capitalist credentials out for all to see. At the same time some aspects of society have to be socialized. Additionally, pure capitalism is extremely unhealthy for the masses. More regulation is needed. That seems to be what they are calling "Democratic Socialists" these days. Dirty secret is that they are capitalists. As far as elected officials who get any attention AOC is the closest I have seen to the socialist side. I have no issue with that. The more it is discussed the more people become comfortable with it. Sanders isn't even close. Guy is a capitalist to his core. History proves that. He uses it for reasons of image.

[Caliman73]

28. Putin is not a socialist. There is no irony.

Socialism is a social and political system that has a wide range of positions but mostly deals with collective ownership over the means of production meaning that groups (government, co-ops, workers) manage the ownership of companies or vehicles of production of goods as units and share equitably in the profits.

Neither Putin, nor the GOP support that. They are for placing ownership and all the benefits into the hands of a small group of very wealthy people. That is not socialism.

What we have to do is not feed into the ignorance about socialism and give the GOP more power to use it as a slur.

Also, collective ownership of the means of production does not mean collective ownership of all things. In an ideal socialist society, you still own your house and car, and the stuff inside. There just isn't someone who owns the entire block of houses and rents to everyone else because their dad left them 10 million dollars.

[Demsrule86]

40. If we call ouselves socialist,we give the GOP an way to attack us...threatening 2020.

[ooky]

24. To Republican voters it is.

To Republican voters, you are a boogeyman.

[HopeAgain]

25. And they aren't voting Democratic anyway

I have three millenial sons and they are perplexed by the fear of socialism. I don't think they are unusual.

[ooky]

26. Probably because you had a big part in alleviating their fears

with the truth about it. Or at minimum taught them how to think critically for themselves.

I have two millenial sons and they aren't ignorant either. But that's because of me. They have some ignorant friends I have met, who they might have listened to if I didn't get to them first.

It doesn't come automatically, it requires education.

[Xolodno]

48. Socialism is often falsely equated with Communism.

Two different economic systems. Both pure Communism and pure Capitalism are great ideas.....on paper. In implementation, fail horribly due to "human...fragility".

I used to be a die hard, Alan Greenspan worshiping, Monetarist. Now, full blown Socialist, but I also recognize that the US is not ready for it. Economic systems evolve along with the values of the population. There is a reason why Feudalism and Mercantilism are not practiced anymore.

Sadly, were a long way off of retiring at 55, valuing life experiences vs. purchasing a boat that you use once a year, etc.

[c-rational]

53. I agree, socialism is not a bad word, however i prefer the moniker Social Democrat.

[HopeAgain]

56. I can live with that

but it seems like we are always letting the other side control the language instead of taking control of it ourselves.

[Demsrule86]

4. Democrats know the truth but the GOP plans to hit us hard as big spending socialists...that is the

attack that is coming this year among others...so we should be prepared to fight back...the socialism isn't so bad argument while true, will cause us to lose elections.

[ck4829]

6. Social values change over time though, Republicans are making "socialism" mundane

When they call every single thing they don't like "socialism".

We can and should fight back against the charge... but I hope we don't run away from the label just because they use it either.

[Demsrule86]

20. Right on tihs threat somone says he/she doesn't think the party is socialist nor are they.

Running on socialism would be political suicide.

[ck4829]

21. So is running away from it just because Republicans call something they don't like socialism

The truth lies in the middle here, I know socialism isn't an easy pill to swallow, but we're not going to win on letting Republicans frame "socialism" in the first place.

[Demsrule86]

22. Why not run as a progressive? Why not offer a public option and run on the ACA...hard to demonize.

Why not play this smart. If you have to explain, you have already lost. Why not get Trump the fuck out of office and worry about the rest later.

[cpamomfromtexas]

14. A wall is big spending socialism but pugs don't want to admit that

[Demsrule86]

19. If we are branded big taxing socialist, we will lose as we did in the 70's . There is a reason we

no longer call ourselves liberals...the word was besmirched by Republicans. In order to win a presidential election, we must appeal to independents...and looking at where we won in 18 and the Senate that would include moderates.

[stonecutter357]

7. "I'm not a socialist , I don't think the democratic party is socialist.

[State the Obvious]

8. In contrast, talk about their.... Republican Fascism

Don't let Republicans control the narrative!

Switch the discussion: talk about the fascist tendencies of the Republican party.

[ooky]

29. We need to steer away from the terms war and educate instead.

Fascism, socialism, many people don't know what those terms mean and yet talk about them as though they are experts. Fascism = Hitler, or Socialism = Marxism (or commies for the even less sophosticated) are the paradigms in their minds. This is particularly true of many Fox News viewers and Rush Limbaugh fans.

These people need to be taught to understand about mixed economies, and understand that Democrats don't support a form of government whereby means of production and distribution are state owned. That there is good socialism and bad socialism, and examples, i.e Medicare = good, tax scam = bad.

[riverine]

9. "Socialism" as I was taught is the government ownership of the means of production

and is in fact contrary to freedom to own your own business or part of a business.

Most of us use were taught this old definition.

Most dictionaries use this definition - which is not something positive at all. Why SOME Democrats want to rehab the word is beyond me.

[GulfCoast66]

32. The meaning has not changed and in my opinion most members here who claim to love socialism don't.

They are social democrats like I am and all of Western Europe which is entirely made up of capitalist countries with strong social democratic programs.

But being a socialist is the new cool word. Yesterday many were progressive.

True socialism is an unworkable nightmare leading to poverty for most.

[riverine]

36. This quote of yours is spot on:

True socialism is an unworkable nightmare leading to poverty for most.

So why are SOME Democrats trying to rehab the word?

Anyone old enough to remember the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) has nothing but a negative association with the word.

[theaocp]

43. We don't let conservative punks control the narrative.

There are many ways to go about this and NOT using the word should not be an option.

[scarytomcat]

10. The right is now using the word socialism like they

used liberal to black label the left. We need to label back, call them what they are FACIST.
When they use the word socialist to dismiss our position we need to call them ANTISOCIAL.
Time to give them a taste of their own shit.

[Farmer-Rick]

11. People really don't have an understanding of what socialism is.

They get it confused with communism but then so do countries that want to practice it. The old Soviet Union and China switched back and forth from calling themselves Socialist to calling themselves Communist.

At its basic Socialism has 3 common features:

The people own the means of production not capitalist. Usually that means the government owns big corporations and factories like in the old Soviet Union and China. But even there, people owned their own farms and small businesses. There are other ways aside from governmental ownership where the People could own the means of production. There could be huge co-ops or worker owned corporations. There are some interesting ideas about employee run businesses if you do a google search. All sorts of worker and owner partnerships and practices.

Economic Planning the magical hand of the free market is really no way to run a country. It creates imbalance, concentrates wealth and is inefficient. Which is why corporation are constantly trying to become monopolies. Because allowing economies to run without restraint usually means the rich eat the poor. Planning so that everyone one has a roof over their head, or has food, or has heat in winter is not a bad thing. It makes for less crime and fraud. It makes happy citizen and a rich nation.

Equality the bounty of a nation should be shared equally. If the government takes control of the means of production, the profits should be distributed to everyone equally (which obviously did NOT happen in Russia or China). All the workers should get a part of the corporation's profits. The profits of the factory should be shared with all the factory workers. It should be shared equally with no accounting for race, sex or religion. Yes, you can pay some people who do different jobs different amounts. It does NOT mean the doctor gets paid the same as the stay at home mother.

Many add other features but I think in these 3, the basics of the economic model is described and accounted for.

[EX500rider]

51. To bad it never works well in practice.

The govt owning the means of production always produces sub-par crap. Russian cars for example. What consumer items were well made in govt factories?

The govt trying to do economic planning also does not work well, see Soviet 5 year plans, current Venezuela or Cuba. Command economies never work out.


"The profits should be distributed to everyone equally"....again never works out in practice, somebody has to be in charge and they give themselves and their allies more, everybody else gets fucked.

The proper quote here would be "Capitalism is the worse economic system....except for all the other ones."

[Farmer-Rick]

57. Just because it didn't work before doesn't mean it can't work.

How many times was capitalism tried before it finally suppressed slavery? The US had a war to stop the pillage of the uber rich slave owners but other countries did it slowly and gradually without country wide wars.

And any socialist country still must deal with foreign capitalist economies that don't want to see it succeed. And must fight off capitalist kings that economically and politically attack them.

I agree the government owning the means of production doesn't work. But like I said, there are other ways for We The People to own the means of production and distribute the profits from the fruit of our labor. Just because Russia corrupted their system doesn't mean every socialist system has to be corrupted. Just like our corrupted democracy doesn't mean every democracy has to be corrupted.

Our government right now is doing economic planning even if it denies being socialist. Right now oil corporations, farmers and Nike are getting federal subsidies. Right now, if I ship jobs to India or become a church, I will get a tax deduction. Tariffs and taxes are economic planning. Almost every country in the world does some amount of economic planning. We all know there is no such thing as "free" markets because you must have a government to prevent theft and provide for safe transportation, if nothing else, for a market to survive.

Socialism would merely bring this out in the open and allow for debate over our economic priorities. Do we really want to continue subsidizing oil monopolies or do we want to move to renewable energy? I bet 80% of citizens don't even know Nike and Exxon Mobile are getting such huge subsidies.

[EX500rider]

58. "Just because it didn't work before doesn't mean it can't work."

Except it has been tried many times and proves to be a dismal economic failure every time.

We do have a way for the people to own part of the means of production in the West, they are called stockholders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

[Farmer-Rick]

59. Well capitalism died out during feudal times over and over again.

Kings, Lords, royals and Popes would simply come in and scoop up all the profits from any successful business, unless they owned the business like the East Indian Tea Company. Peasants had no incentive to increase their output because they got nothing more for better or swifter production. Lords were not expecting income from markets so that markets did not thrive or expand. There was a period of 200 years were feudalism was stagnate yet capitalism couldn't get a foothold. But a rich Lord would have told you this was the best economic system ever.

If you would have asked a rich slave owner of a cotton plantation if he thought capitalism would ever succeed, he would have said: "It has been tried many times and proves to be a dismal economic failure every time." Slavery ensured capitalist couldn't compete without slaves. Not to own slaves was to ensure the failure of any business because they couldn't compete with the free labor of slaves.

So did everyone suddenly quit trying to use capitalism? I guess not.

Owning stock is NOT owning the means of production. It is merely owning a piece of a corporation. But that does not mean the stock owner can decide what to sell and trade, what to pay low level workers, where to invest profits, how to pay vendors, where to place factories, when to shut down unsuccessful endeavors. The only way to be allowed into the decision making process of a corporation through buying stock is to buy up the controlling shares or majority shares. So, who can afford to buy up controlling shares? Not the average citizen, worker or investor, only the uber rich capitalists.

[UpInArms]

12. Newt Gingrich wrote the "list of words" in 1996

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC memo

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

abuse of power
anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
betray
bizarre
bosses
bureaucracy
cheat
coercion
"compassion" is not enough
collapse(ing)
consequences
corrupt
corruption
criminal rights
crisis
cynicism
decay
deeper
destroy
destructive
devour
disgrace
endanger
excuses
failure (fail)
greed
hypocrisy
ideological
impose
incompetent
insecure
insensitive
intolerant
liberal
lie
limit(s)
machine
mandate(s)
obsolete
pathetic
patronage
permissive attitude
pessimistic
punish (poor ...)
radical
red tape
self-serving
selfish
sensationalists
shallow
shame
sick
spend(ing)
stagnation
status quo
steal
taxes
they/them
threaten
traitors
unionized
urgent (cy)
waste
welfare

[aidbo]

13. Try professor Richard Wolf's explanation of what socialism is.

Or check out the website for Black Socialists of America where they have a ton of resources explaining socialism and capitalism.

https://blacksocialists.us/mumbo-jumbo

[Demsrule86]

42. If you have to explain than you have lost the argument in a campaign. Trump has way more

free TV times to destroy us with the Socialist meme. It is their plan...let's not help them.

[Awsi Dooger]

16. I saw it used effectively here in Florida

Gillum was called a socialist. Nelson was labeled a socialist. We lost two races that should not have been losable in 2018.

46% in the exit poll indicated Gillum was too liberal for the state. That was due to being tagged a socialist. I wish the exit polling started asking about socialism. I expect that will begin in 2020.

We can't ignore or downplay the fear aspect of that word as long as the current older generation votes dependably while the current young generation is less involved.

[GulfCoast66]

35. I agree with you somewhat although I think you downplay the racial component to his loss.

But he publicly and proudly welcomed the help of a well known Democratic Socialist. Which he did not need in the primary and killed him in the election.

A good piece of advice to candidates in moderate states. If you don’t want to be called a Socialist, don’t cozy up to self described socialists.

[brooklynite]

17. I'm happy to beat up Republicans claiming the progressive policies are "socialism"...

...but it would be easier if Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution and others weren't self-identifying as Democratic SOCIALISTS.

[Demsrule86]

23. We are not socialists. We are Democrats who believe in good government and a safety net.

[brooklynite]

33. Then call yourself Social Democrats, not Democratic Socialists

In the English language, the modifier comes before the core word.

[GulfCoast66]

34. Thank you! I don't know a single socialist.

I know lots of Social Democrats which is how I self identify.

Unfortunately a few of my social Democratic friends call them selves socialist because it is cool and they don’t know the difference.

[Demsrule86]

39. Absolutey not...those who engage in these sort of semantics give GOP dirty

tricksters the means to mislead,confuse and put us on the defense. If the 2020 campaign becomes a defense of socialism, we lose. That can't be allowed to happen. I suggest we run proudly as Democrats...with an agenda that appeals to the American people. Please consider that we won in purple and red states mostly in the house, therefore, we really need to consider a big tent 50 state approach if we want to preserve our house majority, regain the Senate and kick an undeserving Trump out of the People's house.

[jalan48]

27. Embrace and explain it. Running from it is what the Republican's want. Challenge them to tell

Americans why Social Security, Medicare, public water, roads, bridges, etc.are bad. Tell Americans what the Republicans really want to do is privatize all public services so that they can use taxpayer money to enrich themselves and their friends.

[Hortensis]

30. No one here doesn't like socialism where it works best.

But only rigid zealots imagine that socialism always or even most of the time must work best. Socialism and capitalism are both methods to ends, not religions.

In this era, no one of good sense and principle believes in controlling healthcare by profit motive, nor do they believe in building giant football stadiums as socialist enterprises with taxpayer monies.

This is mainstream rationality. It does not require joining left-wing zealots who imagine "they alone can fix it," but rather, simply voting with the sensible Democratic majority.

Btw, the VA is socialist and the best by far of our healthcare systems when it is adequately funded. Beware of those zealots who imagine they support democratic socialism but, bizarrely, plan to do away with the VA because it doesn't fit in with a one-choice-for-all (Medicare for all-type) system that uses for-profit providers. Most have not thought this through yet, and most of those probably won't.

[GulfCoast66]

37. Actually lots of people here don't like Socialism. Perhaps a majority.

Myself included. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. It has no other generally accepted meaning. And it does not work.

I have read very few posts here supporting it.

What is strongly supported here is social Democracy. The understanding that capitalism generates wealth like no other system. But unless it is VERY strongly regulated it quickly becomes totally exploitative of anyone with limited capital.

Before you respond with the VA, Social Security, Medicare and such, they are not means of production. They are social Democratic programs designed to modify the inherent flaws in capitalism.

Language is important and words have clearly defined meaning.

There is not one highly functioning socialist nation on earth right now.

[underpants]

31. The snowstorm one was a hoot. I think they are shifting away from "liberal "

Just my hunch. Either that or it’s some sort of 1 layer chess with checkers to divert attention away from Trumps ties to Russia. Who freaking knows at this point.

[scarytomcat]

38. Republicans that don't like socialism are ANTI-SOCIAL

the bottom line is they support FASCISM
they are FASCISTS

[bdamomma]

47. boy they are throwing around this word

but aren't the repigs using socialism on themselves. they call it reverse socialism.

found this definition or opinion


Reverse Socialism
Decades ago we all paid a much higher tax percentage, and our economic policies protected the people more than businesses. During these times our nation saw historic growth and unheard of economic prosperity. None of that was done by basing our policies on giving more to the rich. Why do conservative call social programs that help the poor socialism but believe it's ok to take taxes from working people and give that money to people who are already rich. Isn't that just reverse socialism?

[GulfCoast66]

52. I don't like socialism. But no one here is accurately describing socialism

Last edited Wed Feb 13, 2019, 10:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Too many have let our enemies define us as something we generally are not.

Socialism has always and will always mean common control of the means of production.

What I support is social democracy like you see all over Western Europe.

Public healthcare, guaranteed housing, living wage, and all the other things we want are not socialism.

Western European nations are not socialist and do not claim to be. They are prosperous capitalist countries that understand the inherent injustice in capitalism but also its unrivaled ability to create wealth. So they use they power to government to enact social programs to insure everyone, not just those with capital, benefit from capitalism.