We have normalized radical right wing policies and demonize slightly left of center policies

[Yavin4]

The media scurries away from Alexandria Cortez's platform and calls it radical. When in reality, it's pretty mainstream throughout the rest of the developed world. In fact, even far right parties in Europe wouldn't have real problem with her agenda except for her stance on immigration. Only in America are healthcare for all and free public college considered to be the second coming of Karl Marx.

OTOH, we have seen radical, right wing policies put into law and normalized. Gun ownership without any regulation or control is now seen as normal. Restricting a woman's access to reproductive choices is seen as normal. Police abuse of African Americans is normal. Gigantic tax cuts for the rich and bail outs of Wall Street are seen not only as normal but necessary for the health of the economy. Two wars, one of which still goes on, which have strained our budget is seen as normal.

In the end, I cannot blame the media entirely for this. I think most of the blame should fall on us for allowing us to fall into the trap that our policies are radical when they are not. That what the left wants is way outside of the mainstream when it's directly mainstream for all other developed nations around the world.

[Garrett78]

1. Part of the blame also lies with those who misuse terms like "socialism."

Including Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and their supporters. Kevin Drum does an excellent job of making this point: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/07/we-are-all-social-democrats-now/

And those on the outside looking in need to acknowledge that the Democratic Party has become increasingly progressive, while still having to deal with structural barriers (which Ocasio-Cortez will run up against once she's in office) and the fact that "There are many ways to be a Democrat" (as Ocasio-Cortez herself said shortly after her victory)--rather, there *must* be many ways to be a Democrat, since the demographics and culture vary from place to place.

That said, I agree that Republicans have successfully moved the Overton Window pretty drastically, and the mainstream/corporate media/infotainment industry (with their false equivalencies and 'there are only opinions/no facts and no lies' approach) has gone along for the ride. It's gotten to where wanting every person to have health insurance is as "radical" as the agenda of the NRA, which would be completely insane were this a sane society, which it clearly is not. This is a very sick society in which Donald Trump has an approval rating of 40+ percent. We have a pandemic of racism and sexism, but the CDC isn't putting out any warnings over those diseases of the mind.

[theaocp]

4. Fail.

It's here, it's staying, and you can just get used to it. I must want to lose in November, right? I've been on the receiving end of that stick too many times today.

[Yavin4]

5. Socialism, in some form or the other, has been a norm in America since the early 20th century

Did you attend a public school? Check out a book from the public library? Have you or your parents received Social Security? Have you ever been a member of a union? Are you protected by labor laws? I could go on. These are all socialist constructs.

As for public ownership of corporations, if that's so horrid, then why did the public bail out the banks?

[Garrett78]

6. See, people don't understand what socialism is.

Public funding (of schools, police and fire, military, libraries, etc.) is not socialism.

[former9thward]

7. None of what you mentioned are socialist.

Socialism is the government owning the means of production. There were libraries and schools in the Roman Empire. Who knew they were socialist? Social Security was invented and instituted in Germany in the 1880s by Otto van Bismarck, the "Iron Duke", who was Europe's most famous opponent of socialism. The same with police and fire departments which have existed in many places for hundreds of years before socialism was even thought about.

[Yavin4]

9. Okay, how would you characterize the Wall Street bailout?

Or the auto makers bailout? If government is expected to financially rescue entire industries, then doesn't that imply ownership?

[former9thward]

27. Using government money to pick winners and losers is a socialist characteristic in my view.

It is not a good thing and I hope not repeated.

[Garrett78]

13. This person does a good job of defining socialism:

http://oregonsocialistrenewal.blogspot.com/2018/03/abcs-of-socialism-part-1-what-is.html

As the Kevin Drum piece points out, socialism is not the same as 'social democracy'.

This meme that "public funding = socialism" really needs to stop.

When Ocasio-Cortez or Sanders or (anyone advocating for their positions) describe themselves as "socialist," they are doing a disservice. Few people, right or left, understand what "socialism" is, yet they've all made their minds up about whether they like it or dislike it. It would be best to just focus on specific issues.

[GulfCoast66]

15. With Sanders I disagree

I have heard him say that America will not support the tenants of socialism(public ownership of the means of production). But I have never heard HIM say he does not support it. A subtle difference but important. Plus he came of age when the far left in America, which he was part of, strongly supported it.

My operating guideline is that when someone calls themselves something, believe them.

[Garrett78]

22. Bernie has demonstrated, like many others, that he doesn't know what socialism is.

He's essentially said that Americans already support socialism by giving examples of things that aren't actually socialist. Sanders seems to confuse socialism with social democracy (or the Nordic Model), as do so many of his supporters (see posts in this thread for example).

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/democratic-socialism-government-bernie-sanders-primary-president

If you spend much time on social media, you’ve probably seen the memes purporting to show just how socialist the United States already is by listing a bunch of government programs, services, and agencies. There are many variations on the theme, but my favorite one lists no less than fifty-five ostensibly socialist programs whose only commonality is that Uncle Sam carries them all out.

Some directly serve social needs and involve some measure of income redistribution (public libraries, welfare, the WIC program, Social Security, food stamps). Some seem thrown in for no good reason at all (Amber Alerts? The White House?). Others are basic operational activities that any modern government, regardless of its ideological orientation, would carry out (the census, fire departments, garbage and snow removal, sewers, street lighting). And still others involve the vast apparatus of coercion and force (police departments, the FBI, the CIA, the military, courts, prisons, and jails).

For all of Bernie Sanders’s virtues, his campaign for president has only thickened the fog of ideological confusion. At one campaign stop last year, he endorsed the thinking behind the most simplistic of these memes: “When you go to your public library, when you call your fire department or the police department, what do you think you’re calling? These are socialist institutions.” By that logic any sort of collective project funded by tax dollars and accomplished through government action is socialism.

It’s not difficult to see the problem with this line of thinking. In a country as deeply and reflexively anti-statist as the United States, the identification of socialism with government is perhaps the worst possible rhetorical strategy the Left could adopt. “Like the DMV? Then You’ll Love Socialism!” isn’t a slogan that will win many converts. More importantly, conflating all government action with socialism forces us to defend many of the most objectionable forms of state activity, including those that we would want to abolish in a free and just society.

[lunasun]

11. +1 Agree and thanks for the link

[MadDAsHell]

12. Insuring everyone with unaffordable insurance is not a healthcare solution.

The ACA could have been so much more, but instead of bringing ridiculous costs under control, we simply invented an insurance product to theoretically pay those ridiculous costs. We promised healthcare for all but instead gave people insurance (that they can’t afford to use). We need to regain trust from that broken promise.

[ck4829]

23. Misusing terms like socialism, Republicans call everything they don't like "socialism"

[H2O Man]

3. Recommended.

Alexandria recognizes the benefits of public education in K-12 -- which is, by definition, "socialism" -- and seeks to expand public education, be it college or trade school. We have a mixed economy, that does not fit in the definitions that were used in the late 1800s and much of the 1900s. Indeed, the greatest stumbling block to economic justice in the US is socialism for the opulently wealthy people and corporations.

Democratic socialism, in contrast, benefits the majority. It is necessary for our constitutional democracy. It's sad that the concrete thinkers from the right-wing of the republican party are so frightened by the word "socialism," that they seek the "safety" offered by their enemies, who capitalize upon their ignorance.

[Garrett78]

8. ..."which is, by definition, "socialism"'

Last edited Sun Jul 8, 2018, 04:28 AM - Edit history (1)

No, it isn't. I know it's popular to promote this idea that public education, public libraries, police and fire protection and so on are examples of "socialism," but that meme needs to stop.

[GulfCoast66]

16. You do not know the definition of socialism.

Education, utilities, healthcare etc are not means of production. Supporting public ownership of them is not socialism but Social democracy. The public owning GM, Amazon, Pizza Hut and my local nail salon...that is socialism.

[northremembers]

20. A service provider would disagree with you.

A service is also a product (labor). Schools, police departments, and fire departments are places where services are provided and the production of those services would not happen without the publicly owned facility. Teachers in schools and police officers who pay taxes would be co-owners which, by the most specific definition, constitutes socialism.

Which leaves us with a broad and specific concept. The specific concept is that when workers own the means of production, such as when the employees bought out Avis, that is socialism in a pure form. That is also not public ownership. I didn't work for Avis and did not have a share. The profits went to the employees and not the general public. The general concept is public ownership, where the service providers have a share in the ownership but so does everyone else. Any profit would go to a public fund which the labor would have a share in the benefits.

There is a much deeper issue not being discussed, but is playing a factor. Socialism and communism are equated in MSM. They are also equated in our public schools. Communism and socialism are not the same thing and when we say "people don't know what socialism is" this is what we should be talking about because the right campaigns on this. People also don't know what communism is, but they know we fought a cold war against it so it must be bad.

The Cold War itself is problematic because Republicans and Democrats fought it for different reasons. Democrats fought against communist DICTATORSHIP. We believe in personal freedom, freedom of worship, speech, etc. We also believe in change through voting. Republicans have demonstrated they have no problem with dictatorship. They fought the Cold War to oppose workers having a fair share in the profit. Republican administrations overthrew democracies with pro-labor policies and replaced them with dictatorships. When we say Reagan won the Cold War, what he won was our concept of what the Cold War was about. The history books are closed on the subject and the debate is over, but Republicans continue to campaign on a misunderstood issue.

For my part, I think we should be advocating both socialism and social democracy. This is OUR country. We all have a responsibility to pitch in and do our part. We all have a share in the success or failure. Both public and private ownership are necessary and workers need to benefit from the profit of their labor.

[GulfCoast66]

26. I am a social Democrat

And I have no problem with employees buying out their company. But at that point they became capitalist. It has always been possible in this country for companies to be employee owned. That is not a symptom of socialism but dynamic capitalism. In a true socialist system business would have to be employee or state owned. That I and almost all Democrats are opposed to.

You are correct that during the Cold War Democrats were fighting against a communist dictatorship. But communism is always a dictatorship. And I am old enough to remember when the fringe far left in this country looked somewhat longingly at the Soviet Union. We still have those types around but not in the Democratic Party.

I read your Cold War narrative as too one sided and viewed through rose colored glasses. Johnson and Kennedy were Democratic Presidents during that period. I can not see how they were any different than Eisenhower or Nixon from a foreign policy standpoint. Kennedy invaded Cuba, or tried. Nixon met with China. And let’s not forget Vietnam.

Treating Social democracy as another name for socialism or as some kind of socialism lite does our party no favors. And does the cause of social democracy no favors.

Interesting conversation.

[northremembers]

28. It's fun for me, too.

I don't think we significantly disagree here. I think this whole thread is about creating more understanding about a topic conservatives want to use against us. We bring us socialism and contribute to each other's understanding. When Sean Hannity labels something as socialism, conservatives say "Oh, yeah. I'm against that." The way I see it there is no pure system of any sort, nor should there be. Pure systems are like rebound personal ads. They are designed to be the opposite of the political or economic system they want to leave without valuing the strengths of the old system.

My Cold War narrative was simplistic because no one wants to read a 25 page message post with all of the complexities included. Yes, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter inherited policies from conservative administrations and struggled to sustain the policies for continuity's sake. Eisenhower and Nixon did the same. Reagan not so much. Even so, there was a difference of values driving those administrations. That gets more complicated because, as you pointed out, many liberals viewed communism as an opponent to the abuses of conservative capitalism. What many liberals lack, even now, is a language of liberal capitalism. It's out there, thanks to Keynes' work during the New Deal, but it's hard to find.

Capitalism was supposed to be about social mobility, not exploitation. Malthus derailed that with his Iron Law of Wages. Keynes came back with the idea that in a large economy you need an economic infrastructure for social mobility to take place on a large scale. Too many Democrat politicians took that to mean quick fix hand out programs.

Publicly funded programs facilitate social mobility. Education, law enforcement, and, some day, health care lower costs by sharing resources. Institutionalized saving like social security and unemployment insurance also promote social mobility by taking money of out the system before increased wages can drive up inflation. Working class people need a way to get ahead of their daily expenses in order to move up the ladder. Conservative pundits use the term socialism to rally their audiences against these policies.

I think that whether a policy is or isn't actual socialism is less important than the general public's understanding of the policy itself. I think it's easier to take terms already in use and turn them in to our favor to create a broader understanding of what we are trying to do. I also think that it's worth having more specific discussions amongst liberals, like this one, because these discussions help us be more clear about the policies and objectives we are advocating.

[ck4829]

25. +1

[Horse with no Name]

10. K and R. N/t

[smirkymonkey]

14. K&R

[wiggs]

17. Good and true OP. Most dem positions, as stand alone issues, poll majority in favor. nt

[JHB]

18. As evident by some of the comments in this thread, what has been normalized...

...is the Movement Conservative's definition of 'socialist', which on one level is any economic regulation by the government, given their Gold Standard of American Perfection being the Gilded Age.

On a less theoretical, more day-to-day level, 'socialism' is any policy to the left of Attila the Hun that they don't like.

[Yavin4]

19. Framing EVERY expansion of social institutions that can improve overall quality of life as

"socialist" has worked to demean the political legitimacy of said institutions. My theory is that if the Democratic party were to aggressively push back against this framing and for these policy positions they would be in much shape as a political party.

[Garrett78]

21. It's hard to tell if you're describing right wingers or some leftists.

People who frame public education, police and fire, public libraries and anything that is publicly funded as being "socialist" are not helping matters. They are simply demonstrating that they don't know what socialism is.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/democratic-socialism-government-bernie-sanders-primary-president

If you spend much time on social media, you’ve probably seen the memes purporting to show just how socialist the United States already is by listing a bunch of government programs, services, and agencies. There are many variations on the theme, but my favorite one lists no less than fifty-five ostensibly socialist programs whose only commonality is that Uncle Sam carries them all out.

Some directly serve social needs and involve some measure of income redistribution (public libraries, welfare, the WIC program, Social Security, food stamps). Some seem thrown in for no good reason at all (Amber Alerts? The White House?). Others are basic operational activities that any modern government, regardless of its ideological orientation, would carry out (the census, fire departments, garbage and snow removal, sewers, street lighting). And still others involve the vast apparatus of coercion and force (police departments, the FBI, the CIA, the military, courts, prisons, and jails).

For all of Bernie Sanders’s virtues, his campaign for president has only thickened the fog of ideological confusion. At one campaign stop last year, he endorsed the thinking behind the most simplistic of these memes: “When you go to your public library, when you call your fire department or the police department, what do you think you’re calling? These are socialist institutions.” By that logic any sort of collective project funded by tax dollars and accomplished through government action is socialism.

It’s not difficult to see the problem with this line of thinking. In a country as deeply and reflexively anti-statist as the United States, the identification of socialism with government is perhaps the worst possible rhetorical strategy the Left could adopt. “Like the DMV? Then You’ll Love Socialism!” isn’t a slogan that will win many converts. More importantly, conflating all government action with socialism forces us to defend many of the most objectionable forms of state activity, including those that we would want to abolish in a free and just society.

[ck4829]

24. K&R. There's "socialism" as defined in the dictionary and then there's "socialism"

According to American politics.

Which seems to be constantly shifting to an increasingly insane line.

Decades ago, "SOCIALISM! BOO!" was the response to "I like the USSR and we should do what they do!"

Years ago, "SOCIALISM! BOO!" was the response to "I think everybody has the right to healthcare, not just those with money."

Today, "SOCIALISM! BOO!" is the response to "Guys, there was a school shooting, and no, they aren't crisis actors. Maybe we should do something about them, yeah?"

Tomorrow? I'm sure "SOCIALISM! BOO!" will be the response to "Guys, I don't know if it's a good idea to throw virgins into a volcano to appease the job creators."