The problem with 'Socialist'

[crazytown]

In 2016 Bill Maher tried to get Sen Sanders to explain the word ‘Socialist’ with mixed success -

Trump had a one word explanation - Communist -

And .., oh yeah, Mexico is gonna pay for The Wall.

[empedocles]

1. The 81% who do not have a positive opinion of 'Socialist' problem. NBC poll 2018

[honest.abe]

2. When Bernie explains it, it doesnt sound like socialist.

It sounds more like the term social democrat. I dont know why he refuses to use that term to describe himself and his followers. Its as if he is embarrassed to be too closely associated with the term Democrat. Maybe being any type of Democrat is not cool enough for him.

[crazytown]

3. Bill Maher knows what it means.

Sanders keeps deflecting to his talking points. Like you, I din’t get this.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

4. Bill Maher clearly does not understand what Socialism is...

or he would not point to the VA and Social Security as "examples."

Socialism is about state ownership of the means of production and distribution.

[crazytown]

6. I disagree

The VA displaces private medicine. Social Security displaces Private Insurance. When public institutions stand in the place of something that could be undertaken by private enterprise, that is Socialism.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

8. By that logic public fire departments (which displaced private one) and puplic schools (ditto)..

are all "socialist."

In fact, almost every aspect of every government (no matter how right-wing that government is) would be "socialist."

It just ain't so. The VA and Social Security are not "the means of production." They are social benefits that we pay for with wealth generated by an advanced capitalist economy that were (and are) championed by the liberal Democratic party.

[crazytown]

10. Yes Fire Departments are Socialist.

Public Schools are not. You can opt out.

[former9thward]

37. You have your own private definition of Socialism.

Many do but it is not socialism. Police, Fire, roads, water supply, libraries, etc. are not socialism. Socialism is an economic term. It is the government owning everything that produces products or services.

From the dictionary:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

[crazytown]

38. I really don't.

When a Government nationalizes an industry it establishes a public monopoly over that sector of the economy.

In theory Fire Departments could be privatised- put out to tender. That Goverment dictates that Fire Departments must be publicly owned and operated is Socialism.

[crazytown]

39. A real world example - the Atlee Goverment in Britain 1945 -

was, without doubt, Socialist. It nationalized, the Coal, Steel, Gas and Electricity industries, Railways, Airlines, Private hospitals and the Bank of England. Private businesses in those industries were given a choice: sell up or get out. Textbook Socialism.

[Lazy Daisy]

20. By that same reasoning

Why did Kamala Harris make sure it's known she's NOT a Democratic Socialist?

[honest.abe]

21. Because she is not one.

[SidDithers]

44. Bernie won't call himself a Social Democrat...

because people might think he’s finally calling himself a Democrat.

Sid

[pnwmom]

5. And there is a current example of a socialist dictatorship that is in a crisis: Venezuela.

Do we want to alienate all the Latino and other voters who are worried about Venezuela with our insistence on branding ourselves with a vague term that has been too often linked with dictatorships -- in the Soviet Socialist Republic, Nazi Germany, and now, Venezuela?

[crazytown]

7. And that is Exactly what the GOP want to pin on the Democrats.

And Sen. Sanders made it easier by partially defending the Venezuelan government.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

9. Especially since both Maduro and Chavez explicitly embarce(d) the Democratic Socialist ideology.

And especially with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) fully backing Maduro as Venezuela plunges into crisis and dictatorship.

[pnwmom]

11. I didn't know that. Thanks!

[George II]

16. Here is DSA's statement on Venezuela (it's long), looks like they're firmly supporting Maduro:

DSA Statement on Venezuela
January 24, 2019
Stop Dangerous and Counterproductive US Intervention in Venezuela

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) categorically opposes any and all efforts by the US government to intervene in the domestic politics of Venezuela. The US has a long and bloody track record of actions to overthrow democratically elected governments, stop the spread of socialism, and maintain US imperial dominance in the region. This includes the US government’s support of the 2002 Venezuelan coup that led to the temporary ouster of the legitimately-elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. These imperial interventions must stop immediately; the future of the Venezuelan people, and the broader prosperity of Latin America depend on it.

Venezuela is currently suffering devastating economic and political crises that have left millions without consistent access to basic goods and services, and in a state of perpetual insecurity. Inflation has reached astronomical levels, rendering the local currency practically valueless, and limiting the positive impact of regular minimum wage increases implemented by the Venezuelan government. In the wake of President Nicolás Maduro’s inauguration for a second term on January 10, the political situation has become still more dire.

Maduro’s inauguration was accompanied by claims from both the Venezuelan opposition as well as a host of governments in the region and beyond that, he is no longer the legitimately elected President of Venezuela. These claims are based on prior accusations that the May 2018 Venezuelan presidential election was marred by the government’s use of tactics that ensured Maduro’s victory in advance.

The newly-appointed leader of the opposition-controlled Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaidó of the right-wing Voluntad Popular (Popular Will) party, used this legitimacy crisis as an opportunity to proclaim himself the acting President of Venezuela, and called upon the Venezuelan people to rise up in protest against the Maduro government. Many, including a small band of National Guard soldiers on January 22 (who were quickly suppressed by security forces), have heeded the call, leading to sustained protests across the country beginning on January 21.

Though there have been reports of repression on the part of the Venezuelan security forces (including the brief arrest of Guaidó himself outside Caracas) and property damage on the part of opposition protesters (including the arson of an important community center in Caracas), significant confrontations between government and opposition supporters have yet to materialize. Nor has there been any indication that top military leaders are planning to break with Maduro. Nonetheless, the situation remains extremely tense. Any small political miscalculation could provoke serious violence and chaos in the country.

The role of the United States government in this unfolding situation over the last two weeks has been substantial and extremely counterproductive. Its actions have served only to deepen political divisions and decrease the likelihood of a peaceful solution to the crisis. President Trump and Vice President Pence have both expressed their full support for the unelected Guaidó as acting President, and are working tirelessly to organize other nations to do the same. Further, Trump has stated that he is contemplating a military intervention in Venezuela, and the US National Security Council has indicated that it is strongly considering an embargo on Venezuelan oil imports to the United States. These actions would each have catastrophic consequences for the already suffering Venezuelan people. The US government is clearly more interested in using Venezuela as a boogeyman to show the dangers of socialism than in playing a constructive role in resolving the crisis. Unfortunately the consequences of this rhetorical posturing are all too real for the Venezuelan people.

The US government’s recent actions to destabilize Venezuela are only the most recent in a long series of unfortunate actions it has taken over the past several years. In addition to past reckless and worrying comments made by President Trump and other members of his administration about the need for foreign military intervention in Venezuela, the US government has imposed financial sanctions against Venezuela. These sanctions are putting further constraints on the importation of desperately needed food and medicine into Venezuela.

The sanctions also preclude Venezuelan firms from access to US credit, effectively eliminating the Venezuelan oil sector’s capacity to maintain current levels of production, let alone return to pre-2015 levels (which were more than twice as high as current levels). Given that Venezuela depends so heavily on oil exports to fund the importation of basic goods, the US government’s sanctions against Venezuela’s oil sector are tantamount to direct sanctions against the Venezuelan people, whose economic security grows more precarious by the week.

Both the increasingly top-down Venezuelan government as well as the fractious Venezuelan opposition, which has at times resorted to anti-democratic methods, bear significant responsibility for the current crisis and there are important critiques to be leveled against both. As US socialists, we have a duty to do everything we can to stop US imperialism and make the world safe for democracy and socialism; however, our role as an organization should not be to intervene in the internal politics of Venezuela. Instead, we have a responsibility to use the leverage we have to intervene strategically in US foreign policy to help the Venezuelan people defend the gains made during Hugo Chávez’s presidency.

To that end, we call upon the US government to immediately cease and desist all attempts to intervene in the internal politics of Venezuela and break with its shameful legacy of imperial control in the region. Further, we call upon DSA chapters and DSA supported political representatives to mobilize in this particularly critical moment around a campaign of solidarity with the Venezuelan people, aimed specifically at reversing the US government’s disastrous and counterproductive sanctions against Venezuela.

Solidarity with the people of Venezuela! Solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution!

[CrossingTheRubicon]

25. Any liberal Democrat who is on the fence about "Democratic Socialism"...

is well advised to read this shocking statement in support of the Venezuelan dictatorship.

The mask always slips and here we see the true face of the Democratic Socialists of America.

This liberal Democrat stands with Kamala Harris in affirming "I am not a Democratic Socialist."

[Awsi Dooger]

14. We already had an example with Miami-area Hispanics last year

Gillum underperformed in Miami and it was widely forecast, due to the socialism tag and being endorsed by Bernie Sanders. Our primary voters apparently didn't consider that type of thing at all.

I live in a mostly Cuban neighborhood so it is extremely obvious to me. I started seeing DeSantis signs in yards that never sport political allegiance at all. The polls always looked good for Gillum so I hoped he could barely get there but I always knew the polls allowing a large lead for either Gillum or Nelson were bogus.

Here is an article I have posted several times:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article217956930.html

It is great this is being addressed now. The white non-college educated problem was already as glaring in early 2015 as socialism is now, but Hillary didn't seem to understand how ominous it was. I had to throw "Shattered" to the ground when the first 100 pages contained zero mention.

[pnwmom]

18. I understand with Bernie, but why some other Dems are so eager to adopt that brand is beyond me.

They should call themselves FDR Democrats, or some other term that won't alienate people needlessly. They aren't REAL socialists, because they don't advocate for the state owning and controlling the means of production.

[George II]

29. If anyone were to look into the lifestyle of some of these so-called "democratic socialists"....

.....they're far from living to their ideology.

[WordsMatter]

12. It's 'Democratic Socialist' and 'Democratic Socialism'

Not simply ‘socialist’ – words matter.

Socialism: “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” Basically the ‘government’ controls and implements all commerce.

One accurate definition of Democratic Socialism is: a political system where both the economy and society are governed and implemented democratically to meet the needs of all people. Nobody wants the government to make and sell cars or toaster ovens or haircuts for example, as these are why we have private businesses.

Our Constitution basically establishes a democratic socialism government. It’s in the Preamble and Article I Section 8: “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility”, that Congress has the power to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare”, and “establish Post Offices and post Roads”. Note that the only reference to economics/business is that Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce”.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Welcome to D.U. WordsMatter.

[WordsMatter]

17. Oh, thank-you very much!

Yes, first and only post so far...

[pnwmom]

19. Yeah, words matter. And branding matters. And it's DUMB to adopt any brand with the word socialist

in it. Period.

You can get the meaning across with another word that doesn't risk alienating people needlessly, like FDR Democrat.

Nowhere in our Constitution does it contain the words "Democratic socialism" or even "socialism." And it doesn't call for the government to own the means of production, as socialists, even Democratic socialists do.

Read the website of the Democratic Socialists of America.They are advocating businesses run as cooperatives, or as publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumers; or by the state.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/#govt

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

[Garrett78]

22. It's a branding issue for sure. And one just looks foolish when pointing to the Nordic Model...

...as an example of socialism.

Since the term Social Democracy already existed and doesn't carry the same negative connotation, why on earth would you opt for Democratic Socialist instead? Dumb doesn't even begin to describe that choice of words.

[WordsMatter]

30. You make some valid points. But,...

But even the words 'FDR Democrat' can be 'alienating' especially for those on the right (i.e. republicans). Republicans demonize FDR's Social Security and other 'social' programs as 'socialism' no matter what anyway. Do we lower ourselves to their immature level or do we educate them on the fact that the Constitution of the United States is basically a social contract administered democratically? It's all that 'We the People' part of the Constitution...

I don't know of anyone who wants 'the government to own the means of production'. I went to the DSA web site you linked to. I don't see where they or others who call themselves Democratic Socialist or believe in democratic socialism wants the government to control the means of production. They actually wrote:

'Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

I agree with that statement but would change the last sentence to reflect that we elect our representatives to vote based on our positions.

Social ownership (not the government) of enterprises, co-ops, etc, are a good thing. It is like a union of people owning and running their enterprise.

You mentioned the State. Once again, nobody wants the government to own the means of production. But in the DSA example, it does make sense for the government (i.e. the people) to own or run or highly regulate common mandatory necessities of life like energy. There is only one power line running into a home thus no competition.

So, is it 'DUMB' to use the word 'socialist'? Maybe, but Republicans will attack any word or program that is good for 'We the People' (as in All The People).

[pnwmom]

31. The Latinos we want in our coalition probably wouldn't be afraid of the term FDR Democrat,

but many of them are afraid of socialism and socialists. And what is going on in Venezuela right now? A dictator who calls himself a socialist.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2019/01/13/not-my-president-basically-everyone-now-knows-venezuela-is-a-dictatorship/#398f2f656837

[WordsMatter]

35. Do these Latinos you speak of even know about FDR?

I don't know precisely what Latinos you are referring to except that you do mention Venezuela. If you are mentioning the Latinos who want to immigrate to America, I think they know that the USA is not a Communist or Socialist country. We are a constitutionally defined Democratic Republic that governs our Society and I think they know that.

I do not necessarily disagree with you about 'scary' words - it is sad that in the 21st century, people cannot distinguish between Socialism (that nobody wants) and Democratic Socialism (which is what our Constitution lays out).

[pnwmom]

36. Probably not. So they wouldn't be afraid of him. That's the point. It would mean something

to people who like him, without alienating people who have negative associations with socialists or socialism, such as the dictator in Venezuela.

Why do you think Cuban refugees are more likely to be Republican? Because Republicans recognized this and we didn't.

[WordsMatter]

40. Good question...

What are the statistics on Cuban refugees being more likely to be republicans and why is that so? I never even thought about that.
I would think that the Cuban refugees would know America is a democratic republic.

I would also think that Latinos and Cubans would be more inclined to be Democratic than republicans. It was President Obama who opened up Cuba and the way republicans treat anybody who isn't white is revolting.

[pnwmom]

41. Cuban refugees were much likely to vote for Trump than other Latinos.

http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-cuban-paradox/

Exit polls for the greater Cuban-American population in Florida, for example, indicate that a disproportionate amount of Cuban-Americans supported Trump compared to other Latino groups. While 54 percent of Cuban-Americans supported Trump, only 35 percent of Latinos nationwide did. Similarly, in the 2018 Florida gubernatorial election, Republican Ron DeSantis won twice as many Cuban-American votes as his Democratic opponent Andrew Gillum. A nearly identical percentage of Cuban-Americans also chose current Republican Gov. Rick Scott over Democrat Bill Nelson in the Florida senate race. The Cuban vote was solidly red in 2016 and 2018 despite the trend of Latino voters being reliably blue.

Even more surprising is that, until 2016, Cuban-Americans had been voting increasingly more Democratic. Why did the Cuban-American vote break away from a solid trend and veer back into the territory of the solid GOP? The unique history of Cuban-Americans, particularly their overall negative experience with socialism, provides the answer.

The flow of Cuban immigrants began in 1959 at the conclusion of the Cuban Revolution. When dissidents and political opponents fled the Castro regime, the United States used boat lifts and airlifts to assist those it had labeled as refugees of a socialist regime. Prior to this, the treatment in Cuba, as described by many of the refugees who escaped the island, included suppression of free expression, freedom of association, and free speech. The regime was confirmed to have executed at least 9,240 individuals — including citizens associated with the previous Bautista government — and has continued to suppress any sort of criticism of the regime.

SNIP

One of the most obvious reasons that pundits have pointed out for Cuban-American support for the GOP in both 2016 and 2018 is the GOP’s characterization of Democratic candidates as far-left, extreme socialists. In the 2018 election, Gillum’s campaign was attacked by DeSantis for proposing allegedly socialist policies such as higher taxes. These strategies are particularly effective at gaining support from older Cuban-Americans who have an aversion to any socialist or communist candidate due to their firsthand experiences with the worst of Castro’s regime.

[WordsMatter]

43. I get a different take from the piece you linked to...

Excerpts:

In 2016, the majority of Cuban-Americans supported a candidate that made anti-immigration a cornerstone of his campaign

The Cuban vote was solidly red in 2016 and 2018 despite the trend of Latino voters being reliably blue.

In the 2018 election, Gillum’s campaign was attacked by DeSantis for proposing allegedly socialist policies such as higher taxes.

GOP characterizations of Democratic candidates as sympathetic to communism and socialism have proven effective, but Democratic policies have also been cited as reasons that Cuban-Americans refuse to vote Democratic.

And finally:

However, an analysis in the context of voting patterns within the Cuban-American demographic shows a different trend. The 2016 and 2018 results may be the by-product of a generation of Cuban-Americans that will lose their electoral power to younger voters in the near future. These reliably red Cuban immigrants came to America before 1980 and witnessed the worst years of the Castro regime. They were naturalized easily thanks to the “wet foot, dry foot” policy and they currently make up a large portion of Cuban voters. However, these voters are older than the average American, and the younger Cuban-Americans have shown that they do not hold the same beliefs as their parents and grandparents and are more likely to be wary of conservative politics: Cuban-Americans under 50 consistently vote blue, as they did in 2012.

This has nothing to do with 'socialism' or 'socialist'. The article shows where the older Cuban immigrants are basically republican and the younger Cubans are solid blue.

This indicates that if you want the Cuban vote - the word socialist is not a bad word...

[pnwmom]

45. The article is saying is that older Cubans, who had more memories of the regime,

and were alienated by the idea of socialist policies, were heavily Republican -- which was in contrast to other non- Latino voters. But with younger people of Cuban heritage, this was less likely to be true. They are also less likely to have personally experienced Cuba.

The concern is that we will have new waves of refugees from countries like Venezuela who will have the same attitudes as the older refugees from Cuba. Why needlessly alienate them by insisting on a word that means something negative to them?

[WordsMatter]

47. Times have changed since the Cuban issue you referred to. Venezuela might be different.

The refugees coming from the South are fleeing horrendous conditions many of which are
results from America's interference with their countries. They also know that the conditions at
the border, the child imprisonment, are strictly republican policies from this corrupt batch of repubs.

I don't think, in this case, they care about the word 'socialist' or 'socialism'. They are fleeing for their lives.
They all will know that it is the Democrats that are the compassionate governing Party.

But as I said, I don't necessarily disagree with your concerns about those socialist words. Far to many Americans
are easily propagandized into attaching negative connotations into otherwise great words like liberal, progressive,
democratic socialism/ist.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

26. Words do matter. The definition you offered of Democrat Socialism is absurd.

[WordsMatter]

32. How so?

[gopiscrap]

48. welcome to DU

[WordsMatter]

49. Nice to be here!

[Awsi Dooger]

13. Short and succinct wins in politics, regardless of topic

I emphasized the same thing an hour or so ago in the Kamala Harris "not a socialist" thread. Her explanation may be fine but nobody is going to read it, like Al Gore's Dingell-Norwood bill.

Trump understands the value of short effective sound bites, short slogans and short nicknames. He doesn't have to be good on issues when he can merely deflect with the short burst and it becomes etched into the national dialog. Fear explodes.

The discouraging aspect is that liberal was in the final stages of its effectiveness as a scare tactic, and then somehow we brainstormed to self-attach a replacement term in socialist. I wish I could say it were unbelievable but Democrats are not the greatest handicappers.

[Politicub]

34. I stlll remember the Dingell-Norwood moment from the debate

I don’t know why it’s stuck in my brain, but it is.

[Blue_Tires]

23. "socialist" will be to 2020

what "neoliberal" "Wall Street" "corporatist" "grassroots" and "establishment" were to 2016: Nebulous weaponized buzzwords that everybody keeps spitting out yet nobody can agree to a universal definition for...

[marylandblue]

24. I want a candidate who will say, "Cut the bullshit, I am not a socialist."

along with an indignant tone, because people will remember it.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

27. The first candidate who does so will gain +10 in the polls.

[CentralMass]

28. Gallop shows Democrats viewing socialism more favorably than capitalism.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx
Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism
"STORY HIGHLIGHTS
47% of Democrats view capitalism positively, down from 56% in 2016
57% of Democrats now view socialism positively, little changed from 2010"

[pnwmom]

33. They should ask that question by ethnic group. Do we want to lose the Latino vote

because it's more important to keep a WORD with negative connotations than to elect a President with the right policies?

The dictator in Venezuela calls himself a socialist. We shouldn't be tying ourselves to him or anyone like him.

Also, older people, who vote in large numbers, hear the word "socialist" and they think of the Soviet Socialist Republic or the Nazi party (which also had the word socialist in its official name.) Do we want to needlessly alienate millions of older people who are never going to be re-educated on how great socialism really is?

Why is that word so important? Why can't we think of a better brand?

[CrossingTheRubicon]

42. As I mentioned before the dictator in Venezuela calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

The DSA is backing him.

There is a deliberate campaign to get impressionable people to believe that liberal democracies with advanced capitalist economies and generous social welfare programs are "Democratic Socialist" states. It is bogus.

These are liberal Social Democracies. There is nothing remotely liberal about Democratic Socialism. It is a toxic ideology.

We should not attempt to "rebrand it" or attempt to "normalize it" as a feature of American politics.

Instead, we should shine the bright spotlight of truth on this ideology's true aims and, as a party, disassociate from Democratic Socialism in strong an unequivocal terms.

Brava to Sen. Harris!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. This is the only graph that matters if you want to win the general.