Why can't we be better about branding? Why are some progressives so determined

[pnwmom]

Last edited Mon Jul 23, 2018, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

to use the word "socialist"? Even though the first thing that pops into the minds of many older voters is:

The Soviet Socialist Republic.

They don't think about Sweden. They don't think about Norway. They think about Russia -- which, in the minds of millions of Americans, is still connected with The Soviet Socialist Republic.

Especially now, in 2018, with Trump and the GOP constantly sucking up to Putin and the KGB, no Democrat should be pushing a brand-name that is associated with the USSR, or with Russia. For the average, not-very-engaged voters, it just muddies up the water.

You can say all you want about what socialism "really is," how it's misunderstood, etc. etc. I agree. It's misunderstood. But we need to work with the reality on the ground. For millions of Americans, the word has and will always have negative connotations, EVEN IF those millions support policies that would fit a socialist agenda.

We should stop trying to shove that word down Americans' throats. It doesn't matter that we're right about what socialism really means. Just call it something else -- something that doesn't have negative connotations -- and watch our brand soar.


ON UPDATE:

Isn't it better NOT to confuse our "brand" with that of the Socialist Party USA, and their "democratic socialism"? How is the average voter supposed to be able to tell the difference?



From the platform of the SOCIALIST PARTY USA :

https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/platform

We are committed to the transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society

For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources


Dictionary.com

noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

[SHRED]

1. Agreed.

[guillaumeb]

2. What would you suggest?

I agree that the far right has framed socialism as communism, but to really fight this would require that schools teach what socialism actually is, using western Europe as an example.

[Adrahil]

10. Maybe just avoid the word and talk policy?

We are not going to win over anyone by explaining what Demicratic Socialism is.

[guillaumeb]

179. Yes, talk about specific policies.

And why they are more affordable than not enacting them.

[Adrahil]

181. I agree, and wish more people were affected by rational arguments.

We already win on most of the issues, excepting hating brown people.

[guillaumeb]

182. The GOP is excellent at framing.

And, given that the US corporate media is conservative, the GOP framing is accepted as the truth.

[JHB]

17. Conservatives frame the New Deal as "socialism", and thus equivalent to Warsaw Pact Police states

To answer the OP's question: because what once upon a time was the "ranting crank" definition of liberalism and socialism was allowed to become the conventional wisdom. A textbook case of "dragging the Overton window" to the right.


Among the many things that we need to fight this is an actual liberal media. One that can actually push back, both in terms of sound bites and longer-form discussions.

[dae]

59. Exactly.

[guillaumeb]

180. Yes, the mostly non-existent liberal media.

When most media outlets are owned by 6 conservative companies, the success of the right wing at framing the media as liberal is incredible.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. Democrat

[Blue_true]

45. Western Europe ARE NOT socialist. The confusion on this is amazing.

They are Social Democracies that combine private capitalism with wealth sharing. That is vastly different from socialism, where the state owns all production. The Soviet Union was socialist on paper, and when it broke up, those in power stole everything from the people.

[smirkymonkey]

65. +1000

[uponit7771]

89. +1

[nil desperandum]

158. Thank you for this...

I try and explain this all the time I even use the quote from the Danish Prime Minister about Denmark being a free market economy with extensive social programs through progressive taxation....and I still get shit from people who apparently think they know Denmark's economy better than their own prime minister....

[DFW]

160. Those of us who live there have always known that

Some, who don't live there, apparently don't. Like Republicans, who call themselves "conservative" and are no such thing, they think their labels are enough to change reality.

And you're right, the confusion on this IS amazing. Or maybe it is something other than confusion. If someone looks at a frog and calls it an elephant, and they know the difference, maybe it is deliberate and they are not so confused after all. After all, it has worked for Fox Noise for over 20 years.

[Blue_true]

176. You may have a point about things being intentional.

A lot of the people mischaracterizing social democracy in Europe are fairly bright people. The primary issue that I have with the mischaracterizations is out of the gate, they insure failure. If people think that Bankers are going to be dragged out of their plush offices and frogged marched off to a gulag for assumed crimes the week that a democratic socialist takes over the Oval Office, the realization that Bankers won't be jailed in large numbers during the first week or any week of the socialist President's term, will lead to intense anger and acting out electorally that could end up endangering democracy. The latest best example of that was the election of Hollande in France a few years back, there were posts all over DU from our leftmost members talking about how a great new day had arrived. But time moved forward a few years and France came dangerously close to electing a facist as President, largely because Hollande seemed to have had failed at a number of key iniatives, if LePen had been a smooth talker instead of a rough edged hater, she would be President of France today most likely, because people would have seen her as the anti Hollande on the economy there. In fact Hollande did not do too badly, it was the weight of the expectations that some people had of him that caused a lot of issues.

[certainot]

66. liberals just need to destroy the talk radio psyops, otherwise national discussions

about major issues based on facts are impossible. it's useless.

[GulfCoast66]

72. What does Western Europe have to do with Socialism?

Words have meaning. Socialism means the common ownership of the means of production.

Western Europe is strongly capitalist. And since they are Social Democrats they use government to insure that the benefits of capitalism are shared by all.

I am a Social Democrat. Only capitalism has shown the ability to create wealth. But like all human endeavors it can quickly lead to subjugation of the less powerful.

But common ownership of the means of production always has, in the few insane attempts at it, has led to mass oppression and poverty.

[DFW]

161. You're right, especially your last (apparently inconvenient) observation n/t

[Blue_true]

177. Some people chose to look at the world with blinders on.

They don't like how capitalism often creates unequal results, but they ignore the fact that socialism has been far worse whenever it was tried. They always fall back on the saw that if the socialism that Marx envisioned was implemented, it would not fail. Honestly, I have never, ever read Marx, so I have no concept of how he buttressed his ideas with safeguards to insure that they worked.

But I have read plenty of books on human nature and I fancy myself as an observer of people and their behavior. Any system will need leaders to last and have a lasting impact, Occupy demonstrated that well, although I don't think that was the intent. In order for socialism to work, every leader at every level must be selfless, human nature seldom work that way. One of the brilliant aspects of capitalism is that it DOES force leaders and owners to behave with some measurable degree of selflessness. In socialism, the leaders of the collective business have no incentive but to provide workers with subsistence level items like housing, food, ect. The workers have no where else to go. Excess profits from the collective business go somewhere, what has been seen over and over that somewhere were lavish lifestyles for the collective leaders and politicians. In capitalism, the owner has no responsibility but to provide workers with a wage, the workers use that wage to meet their needs. But, workers can go work somewhere else, it may be difficult, but that option exists for them. If an owner is hogging excess profits and the owner across town is making the same profit, but chooses to pay workers more per hour and provide benefits such as health care, dental care and eye care, the first owner is going to lose his or her best workers to the owner across town, to survive, the first owner is forced to change and provide higher wages and benefits.

Republicans and business organizations have succeeded in distorting capitalism by busting Unions and colluding to prevent free agency by workers. Over the shorterm (that can be decades), it will appear that they are winning, but what they are actually doing is destroying the bedrock that causes capitalism to work much better than socialism ever will. Once that bedrock is destroyed, capitalism itself will die and be replaced by a variant of capitalism that is fairer to the worker, or anarchy will reign after socialism is tried once again and fails once again.

[brooklynite]

3. Isn't it annoying that words have actually meaning, and you can't just change their definition?

[Squinch]

4. Kick.

[OnDoutside]

5. You are absolutely right. Thing is, they seem to be using it a lot more very recently

after years of hiding behind less obvious names. Is there an attempt to use the old "commie" crap against Democrats over the next few months ?

[Stinky The Clown]

43. Its BernieSpeak

You know. The Not Democrat

[GulfCoast66]

74. Bingo!

And if I read one more post here trying to explain that even though he calls him self a socialist he is really not, I will scream. I can’t stand the guy, but I at least take him at his word when he describes himself. Funny how so many of his followers refuse to do that.

I am a Social Democrat. Just like most Western Europeans.

[defacto7]

6. I'll agree. The word is unnecessary.

[skylucy]

7. pnwmom-- I totally agree!

[manor321]

8. Who knows? It's absurd and will lose us votes.

We might as well call ourselves the gonorrhea party.

[alwaysinasnit]

9. On the other hand... Since a lot of tRump supporters are grateful to the USSR (er, I mean Russia)

for having "saved" the US from Hillary, who knows, maybe they will associate these "socialist" candidates with Russia and think they will be voting for someone who is on their side. (Yes, this is tongue in cheek).

[JI7]

11. are sweden and Norway even socialist ?

what most of those countries have going for them is they are small and less diverse.

in the u.s. opposition to many govt assistance programs is based more on bigotry.

[Lee-Lee]

23. No, they are not Socialist at all

Not in the actual meaning of the word anyway.

What they are is Social Democracies, where a market economy with capitalism that is actually not highly taxed or regulated exists also have with higher levels of taxation of individuals that pays for a much more expansive social safety net.

Half the problem we have is all the people who insist on running around branding them as socialist. Well they mean that when they say socialist, but other people hear socialist and they think the actual meaning of the word where it’s a planned economy with not private ownership or resources or means of distribution.

[LuckyCharms]

12. Many people think socialism equals communism.

Both terms were used interchangeably during the cold war to identify those who were left of center.

This was burned into the minds of people during the cold war, who passed this line of thinking along to their children, etc.

Most people do not have the will or desire to listen carefully to what the differences are. So, they think "socialism=communism=bad". It's unfortunate, but there it is.

Therefore, I agree that another, more descriptive word should be pushed.

[Honeycombe8]

21. True. People don't really know or understand these terms.

Including myself. I've looked these terms up several times, and still get confused.

Socialism is an eonomic system? Communism is a govt system..where the govt owns all the property?

[brush]

63. Communism is an extreme form of socialism.

[mopinko]

13. rebuild the safety net.

remind them who built it in the first place, and who tore it to shreds.

[Honeycombe8]

14. I agree. Hitler's party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

"Socialist" has a bad connotation in this country. Some think of it as "communist."

But Bernie IS a Socialist...that's the party he listed for himself in the Senate, unless he's changed that recently. (He changed it while running for President on the Democratic Party ticket, is my understanding.)

I was disturbed by this, when I heard of that young woman's victory. People in her district in NY are very different from most of the rest of the country. To have the socialist I.D. associated with the Dem Party isn't a good thing, as far as votes in many parts of America go. Why not just call yourself a Democrat, since you belong to the Democratic Party? And then push social programs?

I don't know how much that hurts the Dem Party. Maybe not much. I wonder if the Dem Party leaders have done any polling about this?

Seems to me that if you want to run as a Democrat, you are a Democrat, period. If you want to belong to a Democratic Socialist Party, that is a third party. Just like Libertarian is distinct from the Republicans, even though they are a faction of the Republican Party in most cases.

Are there any people running as "Republican Libertarians" or "Republican Socialists"? The Nazis were closer to the authoritarian Republican Party here, yet they considered themselves socialists.

It's confusing to me. I don't know what to make of this.

[pnwmom]

18. Even if liberal Democrats don't care, we need moderate Democrats

and some independents to win.

Bernie picked the label for himself long ago, back when he decided to honeymoon in the USSR.

That doesn't mean young candidates like Alexandria should be using the same brand.

[rpannier]

71. Go through Republicans

There are the 'Constitution Conservatives' 'The Tea Party' and so on
Yes, they do have subgroups that are very vocal
As to Ocasio-Cortez, or as you call her the young woman (why not include her name?), she refers to herself as a Democratic Socialist, so do I and I have for years
For the most part, people in most of the country don't give a damn any more than people in her district care who the congressional candidate from Distict-3 in Alabama is.
People make too much of congressional reps and their influence over the country as a whole. Those that care have usually made up their mind and are using it as a justification.
Pelosi, Hoyer, Ryan (when he was still running for congress) people actually care about. This is why you'll see a zillion campaign commercials over the next month equating Congressman-D with Nancy Pelosi by Republicans and Congressman-R with Nunes (or someone more onerous, if the leadership thins) by the Democrats

And for the record, though I now live out of the country, my last two congressional districts were in Upper Rock Island County (Illinois) a farming community of rather conservative Republicans and in Indiana, a very conservative state and the vast majority of the people living there don't give a damn who is running in New York City, Tulsa, Oklahoma and elsewhere.
As I wrote earlier, they pay more attention to the leadership of the party they don't belong to and some of the ore entrenched members than they do at some novice

[melman]

78. 'People in her district in NY are very different from most of the rest of the country'

How so? What makes people in the Bronx and Queens so different than the rest of the country?

[Honeycombe8]

90. You need to come down here & see.

Trust me, they're different.

I've been to NY, lived in Dallas, now I'm here in the deep south, where I was born & raised, and here again (hope to leave again,tho). Not a place you'd visit. It's different here. The NE and CA are more liberal. Even most of the Repubs are more "liberal" than the Repubs in the deep south.

OTOH, we do have a gay guy, age 29, who has announced he's running for U S rep against the incumbent. He doesn't have a chance of winning, but at least he's running. So we have our moments.

[pnwmom]

145. Alexandria's district is only 18% white. That's a huge difference,

in a country that is still 76% white.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217

[melman]

172. So what?

I realize it's convenient for you to marginalize her and her message, but the reality is the things she talks about are universal.


some quotes-

“For me, democratic socialism is value that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society no person should be too poor to live. It means establishing a baseline level of economic and social dignity."



“So what that means to me is health care as a human right,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “It means that every child, no matter where you are born, should have access to a college or trade-school education, if they so choose it. And I think that no person should be homeless, if we can have public structures and public policy to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States.”



real scary stuff huh?

[Celerity]

189. Except what she (and Bernie and all other Democratic candidates they support)

is social democracy, NOT democrat socialism. I have no clue why Bernie and now all the newer ones are insisting on incorrectly self-labeling as socialists (democratic or otherwise) when they cleary are not. It is electoral suicide in the vast parts of our country that are reactionary from 100 plus years of the cold war and before that massive red-baiting and hostility towards the actual socialists and their leaders, such as Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas, et al.

Trying to redefine a term that is globally etched in stone from a high academic level on down to street level is truly a strategy of failure.

[DFW]

164. Like the Republicans with "conservative," the Nazis just hijacked a label.

The expression "Nazi" is nothing other than a result of the European penchant for abbreviating everything. Hitler's NSDAP started with the words "National Socialist." "National" in German is pronounced "NAH-tsee-oh-NAHL." See where "Nazi" comes from? When pronouncing French words, like "nation," the Germans pronounce the "t" like a German "z," which is pronounced like a "ts" in English. In Russian, it's the letter "ц." Just like in German, Socialists are called "ZO-tsees," from Sozialisten, "ZO-tsee-ah-LIST-en."

Even so-called "Socialist" parties in Western Europe have no intention of instituting full-blown socialism. With the EU and its economic integration, the last thing a member country wants to do is discourage foreign investment by the state taking over all private production. Spain just reverted to a government with a Socialist majority and Prime Minister. don't look for them to start nationalizing anything. The center-right opposition just chose a hard-liner to lead them (¡que tontería!), so don't look for them to retake power any time soon.

[Honeycombe8]

171. Actually, it did have a socialist economical basis.

It had social programs. Socialism refers to economy, not system of government. It had a socialistic economy.

But I'm not getting into doing a research paper on the Nazi Socialist Party. I'm just pointing out that the word "socialism" has a bad connotation to many people. I have seen the Nazi Socialist party thing used in mixed forums by the far right, in arguments equating it with liberals in this country. That specious argument is grounded in the use of hte word "socialist."

So people do misunderstand the word and associate it with some bad things. Some think it means communism, as well. Which it doesn't.

[Celerity]

196. It didnt have a socialist economy. Most the oligarchs

retained ownership of their giant firms (examples being Krupp, Mercedes-Benz, Siemens, BMW, Audi, IG Farben, etc.) IG Farben and others had massive interlocks with multiple US firms such as John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil and also Dupont right up until we declared war on Germany. Same for many of our giant banks, such as Chase and Brown Brothers Harriman. Prescott Bush ( W's grandfather, GHW's father) of BBH was a key liaison for them to Nazi Germany via one of the NSDAP's principal funders, Fritz Thyssen (later expelled from the Nazi party he helped build) and his string of shell companies and banks.

IG Farben was broken up post-WWII into 4 main companies (Agfa, BASF, Bayer and Sanofi) that still exist as huge global players.

The giant German companies were, of course, massively controlled and directed by the NSDAP in furtherance of the war state. Fascism at its worst.

[Honeycombe8]

197. You're missing the point.

We could argue all day & night about the German economy, but that's not the point. The point is that it's CALLED a socialist party, and it has been used to draw parallels between it and the liberals here, since they are in favor of social programs ("socialism" ). That's nonsense, of course. But I'm just pointing out that many people view socialism with skepticism because it has a bad connotation.

[Celerity]

198. No, I was specifically responding to your positing it was a socialist economy.

The vast majority of people are hardly going to equate the Germany of the NSDAP as some LW soc-com nation. Hell I would wager 80-90% plus of average Americans don't even know what the Anglicized full name (The National Socialist German Workers' Party) of the Nazi party was.

Some of the most despicable govermental parties in the world had and/or have 'Democratic' in their name. Doesn't make them like our party or anywhere near small d democracy either.

[msongs]

15. IMO it is branding and advance promotion for 2020 campaign by a prominent non-democrat nt

[mia]

16. Well said.

Thank you!

[oberliner]

19. How about liberal?

Is that word OK?

[pnwmom]

22. I don't know. All I know is the word "socialist" has too many negative associations.

Maybe the party should be doing some market research.

[oberliner]

25. What sort of labeling do you think would be effective?

That's why I mentioned liberal - which seemed to fall out of fashion. What do you think of the term "progressive"? Which sort of terminology do you think would be accurate and impactful in a positive way?

[pnwmom]

26. I think "progressive" doesn't have the negative associations of socialist.

It's never been associated with Russia or the Soviet Union.

And it does connect with a positive attitude toward government (as in, helping to make progress). I think it could be used to describe our party, much more effectively than the word "socialist."

[TreasonousBastard]

37. I like Progressive. It's far from perfect, but better than anything else I can think of...

Very few negative connotations, even though conservatives have tried to demonize it.

There was a Progressive Party-- Teddy Roosevelt's after he got screwed by the Republicans.

And who doesn't love Teddy Roosevelt?

[Honeycombe8]

92. What's wrong with being just a Democrat? I'm a Democrat.

I believe, for the most part, in the Dem Party Platform. I'm not going to pigeonhole myself any further than that. In fact, unless there's a list of what a progressive is, I can't say if I would fall in that category.

[TreasonousBastard]

109. Nothing, really, except that these labels keep popping up whther we like it or not, so...

the trick may be to own the label, not be assigned one by the opposition.

[Honeycombe8]

123. No, you don't "own" a label assigned to you by your opponent. You continue to "own" your own label.

The label is "Democrat," as far as I'm concerned. That's why it's called the Democratic Party and not the Socialist Party.

Just to be clear, Socialist Party is a different party.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

69. "Progressive Democracy" has a good ring, too. n/t

........

[GulfCoast66]

77. Are you southern?

The progressive movement is over 100 years old and there is not much there to admire. Huey Long, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Bilbo were all progressives. And outright racist who wanted to use the government to help the poor. The white poor. Southern Whites were all about government help until LBJ extended that help to people of color. Which is why many of us recoiled in horror when Bernie started signaling that economic justice would take care of racial issues. We have heard that before.

My father came out of Huey Long Louisiana. He(rest his soul) would disown me if I called myself a progressive.

I am a liberal Social Democrat.

[Honeycombe8]

91. Most people in the south will react more to "socialist" than to "progressive."

I am from Louisiana myself. I never heard of a progressive until a wing of Democrats started using the term. But everyone knows something about socialism, and the connotation for many isn't good. Many don't know what it is, but think it's something like communism.

I am liberal, but I would never call myself a socialist. I believe in capitalism with social program support, like Social Security, health care, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Most of the First World countries are capitalist with social programs. America to a much less extent, and if the Republicans have their way, no social programs at all.

[GulfCoast66]

120. I agree. Neither socialist or progressives helps the cause

And as you say, socialist is totally inaccurate for what liberals want anyway. Lots of people call themselves socialist but I have not actually heard in expose actual socialist dogma. They are all Social Democrats.

I prefer the term democrat!

[Hoyt]

20. Agree. I'd love to see us like Denmark, without the racism, but "socialism" scares

a lot of people.

You are exactly right, we’ll never explain what that kind of “socialism” means so that the old white wingers don’t panic and buy more gunz.

[Hekate]

24. Agreed. It simply doesn't mean the same as it does in Europe. Some posters...

...have explained to us ad nauseum that C**T is just a naughty word in Britain that no one takes offense at, and why are DU rules so stuffy? Whatever guys, it remains an obscene and demeaning word in the US.

"Socialism" as a word has never gained currency in the US in the broad scheme of things. A lot of people like the policies, though. So why not just continue to attach those policies to the Democratic Party Platform, as we have long done, and stop trying to foment trouble by insisting on an unpopular word?

Why be deliberately divisive? Unless that is your intent?

[Squinch]

27. We should somehow bring out the concept of "get your fair share of the wealth YOU helped create."

Because clearly workers in this country DON'T.

[pnwmom]

28. Too bad "fairism" isn't a word.

And it sounds too much like fairies -- imaginary flying creatures -- which the GOP would use against us.

Darn.

[Squinch]

30. Lol! Exactly the concept, though. This is why we need the pr experts.

[AlexSFCA]

29. Sweden and Norway? Those are capitalist countries not socialist

they have capitalist economies that’s why americans never think about those countries (and canada) as socialist. Socialist countries were former soviet block countries. You can’t just redefine the word socialism. Please go to webster dictionary: “Socialism is a system of society or group living in which there is no private property”. It is one of the worst ways to run a country and we should always reject it as it is fundamentally anti-american. Bernie can’t invent new definitions as he wishes, words have meaning and especially such a strong and decidedly negative word like socialism. We support capitalism and private ownership with guranteed vital services such as healthcare and education to every citizen. Even then we want medicare for all as government insurance program not state-owned hospitals as in socialism. Toxic populism is killing our party.
Please do youselves a favor, travel to Scandinavia (I have) and you will be hard pressed to find anyone who will says they are a socialist economy.

[elmac]

31. Hey, I'm a proud Socialist

More accurate, a Democratic European style socialist.

[AlexSFCA]

33. it's called social capitalism not socialism. go to webster dictionary

Last edited Sun Jul 22, 2018, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

[elmac]

35. no thanks

I will call it what I want but you can call it Harry, Mike or whatever floats your boat.

[SunSeeker]

52. Calling regulation of capitalism "socialism," is wrong and just plays into the hands of the GOP.

But it certainly makes the Democratic Socialists of America happy.

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. None of the Scandinavian countries have that. They are free market economies, as the Prime Minister of Denmark told the world in response to Bernie's incorrect suggestion that Denmark is a socialist country.

[GulfCoast66]

79. You are free to create new meaning for words.

Just do not be surprised when people who own dictionaries call you out.

No nation in Western Europe is socialist.

[kimbutgar]

32. Why not be called a FDR Democrat?

[tonyt53]

38. FDR was NOT as socialist. To equate him with that is wrong. Modern socialists are tagging along.

They are linking their thinking with those of FDR.

[Ilsa]

34. Brand/marketing ecxpert Donnie Duetsch is supposed to meet with Democratic

Leaders about this stuff. On MoJo, he said they should adopt a slogan like, "Vote as if your life depends on it," because it might!

He said the slogans are out there, and the Ds should avoid anything too generic like the most recent slogan.

[Efilroft Sul]

36. For once, we get to define the Republicans.

They're in the tank with Russia, so hang that country and Putin around their necks until the cows come home. Our fight for the soul of the country will come to define us.

[elmac]

39. Anyone who thinks socialism is a bad word

better stop using public roads, utilities, police, fire departments, schools, social security, Medicare, ect…
By the way, anti socialist talk belongs on fox so called news, not DU.

[pnwmom]

46. Anyone who thinks we should reeducate hundreds of millions of Americans

on the "real meaning" of an old word, instead of simply changing a word that is past its sell-by date, is making a mistake.

[GulfCoast66]

80. Nothing you listed had one whit to do with Socialism

Those are not means of production but shared public resources.

Socialism has a defined meaning. Your example is not socialism.

[HopeAgain]

84. Agree

[Blue_true]

40. Some far left people don't want reform.

They want to blow things up so that their glorious revolution starts. Working on developing Nordic or Canadian style systems is too slow for them.

[elmac]

58. lol

good joke!

[ancianita]

41. Why not define it in everyday constitutional language.

?itok=9Daikr5Y

[pnwmom]

44. Because that phrase contains the word "socialist." Which has acquired negative connotations

that we are stupid to ignore.

[ancianita]

48. Like cowards we hide from stigmatizing of "LIBeral" as well, as if the meaning of "free" is bad.

[ancianita]

50. "For the people" and "We the People" are constitutional. We are FOR society. Social. ists.

[pnwmom]

51. I don't think the word liberal is as bad, because it's not connected with Soviet Socialist Republic

[BlancheSplanchnik]

76. I don't know...right wing outlets (ie, hate radio, fux, etc.) have demonized the word.

Lib and Liberal are what they paint on their target practice hay bales. There’s a faction whose rage is focused on Liberals.

[elmac]

47. and why would anyone want to sanitize the name socialism?

to make the trumpster happy? Lets face it, anyone turned off by socialism will never, ever vote for a Democrat so why worry about it.

[pnwmom]

54. To win an election. Why be so attached to a word that is connected to the Soviet Socialist Republic

and has negative connotations for so many (who would otherwise support our policies)?

Why put people off because of a brand name that is ineffective?

[SunSeeker]

49. Yep. Or they think about Cuba and Fidel and political prisons.

What is so tragic about this self-inflicted wound is that it it espouses a lie, namely that only socialism will accomplish the things they claim to want (single payer universal affordable healthcare, free state college, a living wage). However, all of these things are provided routinely be well functioning free market democracies like Canada, Australia, Sweden, Denmark and France. None of these are socialist countries. There are very few actual socialist countries, and none of them should be emulated by the US.

[warmfeet]

53. Great.

Flee our identity as socially responsible citizens.

Kowtow to those that criticize us daily.

Perhaps we should call ourselves Republicans instead of Democrats?

That should prevent frightening the undecided voters.

We could have the presidency right now. Hmm, just think of it.

Maybe we should just have the courage of our convictions.

Maybe we should not cave in to the criticisms of the other side.

If kowtowing to the other side is what the Democratic party is now about, I am done with them.

I will fight these bastards on my own, if necessary.

What say you?

[pnwmom]

56. Socialist isn't my identity. The word doesn't carry any warm and fuzzies

for me or millions of other Democrats.

It's the POLICIES that matter, not the particular word. If we can figure out a better brand, that isn't associated with the Soviet Socialist Republic, and doesn't alienate millions of ordinary Democrats, we should use it.

[AtomicKitten]

55. N.Chomsky: "B. Sanders is not a socialist. He's a decent, honest New-Dealer."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/271652-what-does-sanders-mean-by-democratic-socialism

[pnwmom]

57. I'd prefer the term New-Dealer myself. But some market research is in order. n/t

[SunSeeker]

61. Noam Chomsky is wrong.

FDR was a proud member of the Democratic Party. Bernie is not. Bernie is quite emphatic that he is a Democratic Socialist.

[elmac]

60. I quess I could probably call myself a kinda progressive

or kinda socialist just to keep the uninformed, fox news viewing voter happy.

[pnwmom]

62. I don't care about making anyone happy. I just want voters to vote for the Democrat

and not get stuck on the word "socialist."

[Meowmee]

64. Maybe

Just call ourselves what we are- dems for democracy and so on.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

67. Terms like "working for the common good" ring much better, or

"helping our fellow man" - both of which are hard for so-called Christians to deny.

Through the years, Republicans have adulterated so many English words until they're virtually useless. Examples: freedom, conservative, and liberal.

They've negatively affected our dialog and discourse in far too many ways.......

[Nevernose]

68. I'm a socialist

I’m not ashamed of being a socialist, nor am I afraid of what others think of the word. I refuse to hide my beliefs or identity.

[pnwmom]

70. Well, you can't get elected to high office as a socialist in the U.S. Even Bernie knows that. n/t

[Nevernose]

95. That much we agree on

There’s all sorts of stuff you can’t tell people if you you want to win high office, or even most low offices. Remember that study a few years ago that showed more Americans would vote for a convicted rapist before they’d vote for an atheist?

Still doesn’t stop me from saying I’m an atheist. I’m not going to live in fear of other people’s opinions.

My political and religious beliefs really aren’t wild or extremist, but if I don’t face the world with honesty and bravery, other people will keep living in fear of “socialists using the government to steal their businesses” (which is not what socialism isn’t) or that atheists are miserable people who hate God (which is the opposite of what atheism is). More importantly to me, if I don’t speak up for what I believe in, others will suffer in lonely silence while the world continues to not change.

For the record: I’m still active in the Democratic Party. I’m just active in the socialist community, as well.

[SunSeeker]

73. So you believe in government ownership of the means of production? nt

[Nevernose]

93. No

I believe that workers should have the largest say in the means of production, that our economy doesn’t work for a majority of our citizens, and that there is a better world — and a better capitalism — that we should aspire to. I believe that an economy of greed is a a major thread linking most of the workd’s problems, from the degradations of racism to environmental desecration to poor mental & physical health to most other major issues of our time.

[SunSeeker]

96. Then you're not a socialist, you just believe in well regulated capitalism, like the rest us.

I realize that does not sound nearly as revolutionary and daring though...

[Nevernose]

105. No, definitely a Socialist

I hold volunteer positions with socialist organizations, as well as occasionally teach political and economic theory on behalf of socialists. May Day parades, feeding the homeless, the whole shebang. I’m just more of an incrementalist than many of my socialist comrades, preferring to take one step at a time. The workers should control the means of production to the largest extent possible. Some people think that means “the government owns all businesses,” but that’s an extremely narrow view of socialist thought and one not very commonly held anymore. That limited definition also excludes the many aspects of socialism which aren’t 100% economic in nature, such as using our capital to eliminate poverty and homelessness, to end racism and sexism, or to provide a more meaningful life than that offered by consumerism.

If you’re truly interested, you should find some local socialist organizations, such as the DSA, the PSL, or the IWW. Socialism is a huge umbrella unde which are many schools of thought, and there’s a lot to be learned from your fellow liberals than you’ll ever get from the Internet.

Also: I’m an old man. Trying to seem edgy or revolutionary mostly just makes me think my back is going to hurt afterwards. For whatever reason, I just keep getting further Left the older I get.

[SunSeeker]

106. If you don't think government should own all means of production, then you are not a socialist.

Workers owning their own factory is not socialism. It is still private ownership of production. You obviously like May Day parades and holding yourself out as a socialist and hanging out with people who similarly like to call themselves socialists, and you appear to have created your own definition of socialism. But that does not make you a socialist. You sound like you're a liberal. I am a proud liberal. Liberals generally are not socialists. I'm old too. I lived in a socialist country. I can assure you, there was just as much, if not more, racism, sexism and consumerism under socialism.

[Kentonio]

107. Which country?

Because frankly, you sound like you’re hung up on a dictionary definition of socialism (or simply consider it interchangeable with communism) and refuse to accept how ideology can change and evolve over time.

[SunSeeker]

108. "You sound like you're hung up on dictionary definition."

Well, I guess I am "hung up on" going by what words actually mean.

I absolutely do believe ideaology can evolve. But once it evolves into something else, call it something else. Once milk "evolves" into cheese, it's not milk any more. It's cheese. Words matter.

[Kentonio]

110. Like the way gay has always meant happy, and always will because words can't change?

The word socialism in Europe has a completely different meaning to the US. This whole 'controlling the means of production' stuff that people at DU love to trot out is simply not recognized in Europe.

Socialism in Europe has evolved to become an everyday term that just describes government devoted to supporting the needs of the working people over corporate or monied interests. There have been countless 'socialist' governments in Europe, and their focus is almost always on worker protections, minimum wage rises, protection of universal healthcare and so on. Occasionally that includes the nationalization of essential industries like rail/energy/water etc, but that's about ensuring those essential services are available at an affordable price to normal people.

If you want to stick by an outdated, dictionary definition of socialism then that is of course completely up to you. Given that an entire continent have been actually electing socialist governments for the last 70+ years however, you might want to consider evolving on that position.

[SunSeeker]

122. There are no socialist governments in Europe.

There are very few socialist governments in the world. I can only think of a few: Cuba, North Korea, maybe Venezuela.

Calling ourselves socialists buys into the false GOP narrative and is just silly. Why use a word that has such a well-established meaning in the US...and such a deservedly negative connotation, when you have the whole dictionary available to you? Why are you so enthralled with the word socialism?

[Kentonio]

147. There are plenty of socialist governments in Europe

The only people who say there aren’t are Americans, funnily enough. They even openly call themselves socialist, because it’s only really America that has such a strange hangup on the word, thanks to decades of anti-communist propaganda. Socialism isn’t scary to Europeans.

[SunSeeker]

149. Wrong. There are no socialist governments in Europe.

Socialism, where the government owns the means of production, is not favored by Europeans and is not found in Europe.

The Prime Minister of Denmark famously corrected Bernie Sanders on this point:

Bernie Sanders has long referred to himself as a socialist rather than a member of the Democratic Party, which has naturally led to a lot of questions about what socialism means to him. He consistently references the social models of the Nordic states — especially Denmark — as his idea of what democratic socialism is all about. But in a speech Friday evening at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said that while he's flattered to see Denmark discussed in a widely watched US presidential debate he doesn't think the socialist shoe fits.

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said. "Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

In Rasmussen's view, "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."
...
And Denmark has, as Rasmussen goes on to say a bit later in the talk, exactly the kind of single-payer health system that Sanders favors. But in Rasmussen's view, this doesn't amount to socialism at all.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

[Kentonio]

157. That's actually pretty funny

Rasmussen is part of Venstre, a centre right conservative-free market party, so no he’s not likely to consider Denmark socialist. Perhaps they’d have gotten a different answer if they’d asked the leader of the Socialist People’s Party instead.

Incidentally, please stop with the circular arguments. I live in Europe, and I’m telling you that this ‘government owning the means of production’ stuff is not what modern socialism means any more. All you’re doing is insisting that unless that original point is maintained, that no party can be socialist. Try telling that to modern socialist parties who have spent decades fighting for strong worker rights, minimum wage, universal healthcare protections and fair taxation on corporations and the rich, and watch as they roll their eyes at you. It’s like saying you can’t support a free market if you want any market controls or regulation whatsoever.

[SunSeeker]

159. I lived in Europe too. Socialists say a lot of stuff, but that doesn't make it true.

Like I said, there are no socialist countries in Europe any more. And for good reason.

Regardless, we have to go by what socialism means in the US, since that is the electorate we are dealing with. Calling liberal reforms socialism is a smear in the US and plays right into the GOP narrative.

[Kentonio]

165. Well we'll have to agree to disagree about the socialist countries

But I do agree overall about the negative connotations in the US. It probably needs a rebrand, although in fairness the GOP did take a lot of the sting out of it already by calling anything Obama did socialist.

[SunSeeker]

167. Our disagreement does not change the fact that there are no European socialist countries.

The GOP did not take the sting out of the s-word. They weaponized it and it was one of the reasons we got "shellacked" in 2012.

I really don't get why you are so enamored with the word socialism. Is using that word more important to you than achieving the liberal reforms that you call socialism?

Isn't it hard enough to achieve these goals without using a word with such negative connotations in the US?

Isn't it hard enough to achieve these goals without adding a pointless "rebranding" of a clearly defined word to 300 million Americans? Why add that to our burden? You have the whole dictionary available to you to describe liberal reforms.

[Kentonio]

169. Ah I should have known that any attempt to ease disagreement would be met with intransigence.

My bad for trying.

[SunSeeker]

170. Facts are intransigent. nt

[Kentonio]

199. Your 'facts' are about as accurate as those we're thrown each week at White House briefings

Perhaps you should stick to discussing America, as your knowledge of European politics is clearly lacking.

[SunSeeker]

200. What did I state that was inaccurate? Or did you just post to insult? nt

[GulfCoast66]

81. So what business do you want the government to take over first?

Big or small?

Words have defined means. When you call yourself a socialist you are telling educated people you want the government owning the means of production(businesses)

[Nevernose]

94. Neither

Because socialism does have a definition. You, apparently, aren’t sure what it is. Hint: it’s not “government owns all the businesses.”

What a socialist is and what you hear are not the same thing.

[SunSeeker]

97. Socialism does indeed have a definition:

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : 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

[Nevernose]

101. That's inaccurate and oversimplified

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Still an oversimplification, but a hell of a lot closer to an explanation of a complex political/economic theory than one can find in a dictionary. Despite that, your very own definition of socialism says “collective OR governmental ownership.” That’s not “the government owns all the businesses.”

[SunSeeker]

104. I cited the Websters definition of socialism, i.e. government ownership of the means of production.

That is what people understand to be socialism.

Wikipedia is not an official dictionary.

It is self-defeating as a progressive to stretch the definition of socialism to include well regulated free market capitalism. It buys into the false GOP narrative that any regulation of capitalism is socialism. It is simply is not. Needlessly and inaccurately using the term socialism to describe single payer, good schools and a living wage will only make it harder for us to get these things.

[pnwmom]

116. You can't expect the American people to use your complicated definition instead of

the dictionary definition. There is NO REASON we can't use another, better word instead of one that is defined as follows;

Dictionary.com

noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

[GulfCoast66]

119. Better let Webster's dictionary know...

Cause they apparently have it wrong.

And I would suggest that rather attempting to get the rest of the world their definition of Socialism is incorrect it would me much easier to start calling your self what you actually seem to be. A Social Democrat.

I know it feels edgy and trendy to call yourself a socialist but it appears that you truly are not.

[Nevernose]

124. No, I'm definitely a social democrat

And a Democratic Socialist. I’m not a state Socialist, and I advocate a gradual, not-violent move to collective ownership of the means of production and government policies that heavily favor small scale mercantilism over capitalist Amazons or WalMart families (or Stalin-Mao style five year plans, for that matter). It’s not really my fault if people don’t learn about complicated political concepts beyond Webster’s Dictionary or 288 character Tweets.

An actual, by-god Socialist.

[GulfCoast66]

146. Wow.

Can’t say I share your long term goals but we have a shit ton to accomplish as allies before that becauses an issue!

[SunSeeker]

168. Socialism is not a "complicated political concept."

People don't oppose socialism because they don't understand it.

People just know from history that socialism does not work.

[bigtree]

82. yeah we should totally cave to right wing bullshit

...what's next? Liberal? That's a label they've tried to exploit for decades.

Weak ass surrender bullshit.

[HopeAgain]

83. Yep I'm with you

If we are going to dumb down liberalism, we might as well become Republicans.

[SunSeeker]

99. Liberalism and socialism are NOT synonymous. That is a GOP lie.

Liberals generally do not believe in government ownership of the means of production, which is what socialism is.

[HopeAgain]

112. I did say not that at all.

But the whole idea of "branding" sounds like Tea Party style groupthink to me.

[SunSeeker]

121. We brand ourselves every day, whether we like it or not.

And the GOP is working to brand us as well.

Refusing to look at branding strategically is just letting the GOP brand us.

And the GOP would be delighted if we bought into their false narrative that regulating business by establishing fair work regulations and a safety net amounts to socialism. The GOP would be delighted if liberals like us started calling ourselves socialists.

[HopeAgain]

125. Fine, but lets not shy away from

Social services
Social security
Social safety net
Social compact.

[SunSeeker]

128. Of course!

Or ice cream socials.

[SunSeeker]

98. No, how about we use the correct words for what we mean?

Because calling what we want socialism is inaccurate and plays into the narrative of the GOP. Well regulated free market capitalism, with living wage laws, free state college, and single payer healthcare, are all standard free market regulations in modern, well-managed free market economies like the Scandinavian countries, Germany, France, Canada, etc.

There are very few actual socialist countries. I can only think of a few: Cuba, North Korea, maybe Venezuela...

Eschewing the word "socialism" to describe what we want is NOT like refusing to be called liberal when that is what we are. It is not weak ass surrender bullshit. On the contrary, choosing to call regulated capitalism "socialism" is surrendering to the false GOP narrative.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

85. If you Google "Socialist Mayors" you see that it was more common 100 years ago.

And 100 years ago, like now, there was a lot of wealth disparity. Our crumbling safety nets help with some of this, but a lot of Americans are desperate for solutions to basic issues - like healthcare.

Some have called the current use of the word "Bernie-speak." The politicians I see calling themselves socialists stand, from my perspective, for these principles: universal single-payer healthcare; free public post-secondary education; increased oversight/regulation of Wall Street; and higher taxes on the top 10% of wage earners.

I don't see this as socialism in the sense that the State owns major industries. I see it more as a new social contract.

[YOHABLO]

86. Capitalist indoctrination starts on the day we're born in the U.S.

Not everyone is a true Capitalist. Those are the few who actually make money with money. I didn't say earn money, I said make money. I see true Capitalism as institutionalized gambling. If you have money and can afford to invest,or say, play the stock market, you can live quite well, especially off dividends. Capitalism requires risk taking, where Socialism does not.

The truth is we already have Socialism in this country. We specify what are the needs of the ''commons'' and we agree to spend tax money on those specific needs. Let's see, fire departments, police forces, roads and repair, water systems, health departments, schools, Now that is socialism. It's about establishing services and programs to improve the quality of peoples lives.

Commons: definition: land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community.

Perhaps we should change the name of the Democratic Party to the Democratic Peoples (or Commons) Party.

[SunSeeker]

102. That whole Thom Hartmann "commons" spiel is not describing socialism.

Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Thom Hartmann is wrong if he thinks having fire departments, courts, schools and roads is socialism. It's not. It's just well regulated capitalism. Even the biggest fans of capitalism realize it must be regulated to work.

And if you think socialism does not require risk taking, you have never lived in a socialist country.

[gulliver]

87. Democratic Progressive Party

You make a very good point. The word "socialist" is too freighted with bad connotations. It's not inaccurate or somehow ignorant to think a word means a lot more than the dictionary says it does. The meaning of a word is defined by how it is used.

Why do we need a name change at all? The best reason I can think of is to merge the whole team psychologically. Then "lifelong Democrats" and "upstart Progressives" would be of equal "perceived stature," because the party would be "new."

[Garrett78]

88. Many of those calling themselves "socialist" don't even understand what socialism is.

They seem to confuse socialism (or what some call Democratic Socialism) with Social Democracy (the Nordic Model), which are *not* the same. Some seem to think anything that is publicly funded (schools, police and fire, etc.) is an example of socialism, and it isn't.

Anyway, I doubt there are many people who think of the USSR when they hear the term "socialism." Most associate the USSR with communism. That said, I agree that using the term "socialism" is not in our best interest.

[SunSeeker]

100. Yes, that is painfully obvious from reading this thread. nt

[Lee-Lee]

111. Yep, a big chunk of the problem is people who can't define socialism

Yep insist on arguing for it or even identifying themselves as something they can’t even define.

[radical noodle]

103. I agree

Even if someone takes the time to look up socialism, most of the definitions and synonyms are related to the community owning things collectively, Marxism, or communism. Most people in the US don't want that, and it misleads because most Democrats don't want that either. We need a better descriptive word of what we believe.

[RandiFan1290]

113. Your friends on the right call every candidate a 'socialist'... even Manchin

Nice try, though

[pnwmom]

115. My friends in the dictionary call people who believe in socialism, socialists.

And socialism is defined as follows:

noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


from dictionary.com

[pwb]

114. How about the Social party?

Or society party? Social is not a bad word now is it. Like social security, most of us like that. I say just leave off the ism and ist and be social. The nice people party.

[Vinca]

117. If Democrats are going to use the term they must constantly remind people what Medicare,

Medicaid, Social Security, the VA, etc., etc., etc. are: socialism. The meaning of the word has to change in the minds of the less informed (Trumphumpers) before they will even listen. Right now they think we're Commie pinko, Russia loving . . . oh, wait.

[pnwmom]

118. IOW, we have to re-educate 300 million people. How about just use a better word

that doesn't scare people off and isn't defined as follows:

Dictionary.com

noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

And won't be confused with the SOCIALIST PARTY USA

https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/platform

We are committed to the transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society

For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources

[FSogol]

126. Well said. N/T

[JCanete]

127. Becauase socialist is becoming less and less a dirty word as people are acquainted with it and its

actual meaning. And the evidence shows that millennials are far more wiling to embrace philosophies that exist within socialism because the work has been done by people reclaiming the word and educating with it.

[SunSeeker]

130. People are not increasingly embracing government ownership of production.

Certainly people are more inclined to support progressive programs like unversal healthcare, but safety net programs are not socialism.

[JCanete]

133. People are not increasingly selling the notion of ownership of production. If that's what people

here are railing about, and I highly doubt it, then who is this boogie man that they are putting so much energy into warning us about? Sanders and other self-purported democratic socialists are not advocating for this. Who of prominence, is?

By the way, universal healthcare, single payer, would be socializing of that industry.

[pnwmom]

134. That's what the USA Socialist party is advocating for. Why do we use the same name

for some of our policies?

SOCIALIST PARTY USA

https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/platform

We are committed to the transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society

For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources


Dictionary.com

noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

[JCanete]

135. What word isn't used for different sets of values? Is there one?

The People's Front of Judeah are a very different beast form the Judean People's Front. They can't even stand each other.

[pnwmom]

136. There are LOTS of words that aren't connected with the Soviet Socialist Republic.

and don't carry all the unnecessary baggage of "socialist." Pick one.

[Celerity]

192. There are no Democratic candidates associating themselves with

the Socialist Party USA. Some are (foolishly IMHO) allowing themselves to be latched onto by the DSA, which is far less doctrinaire and muddled in their message. That said, the DSA has plenty of loose cannons who actualy are full stop socialists, and some who even advocate (or at least hold very favorable views towards) Marxist-Leninism.

Bernie and the rest need to stop incorrectly self-labeling as democratic socialists, as none of them are. They are boilerplate, bog standard social democrats, the same as vast parts of Europe. None of them are in favor of having state control of the means of production. Sanders has been asked that question hundreds of times, and always says he is not against capitalism, he just wants it more regulated.

[SunSeeker]

137. If you are not advocating government ownership of production, then you are not a socialist.

Single payer is not socialization of medicine. Why are you buying into this Republican talking point? Under single payer, doctors and hospitals would still be private businesses, they would not be owned by the government.

Calling safety net programs socialism is inaccurate and scares away support for these programs. Is using the word socialism more important to you than being able to get these programs?

[JCanete]

138. I don't think you are correct. The wiki page has a far broader definition of socialism that can

include markets. You may as well say "if you aren't advocating for lazes fare capitalism you aren't advocating for capitalism."


As to single payer, you are right, there is a distinction, though this would be essentially like government contracting. Government would set the rate of pay, and would continue to(and probably further) regulate the care hospitals and doctors provide.

[SunSeeker]

139. Wiki is not an official dictionary, it is internet poster driven.

Look up socialism on Webster's. It means government owns the means of production.

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : 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


Again, is using the word "socialism" more important to you than getting these safety net programs?

[JCanete]

140. It is a word that has been losing its boogieman quality, so I see no reason to try to rebrand

movements that are already gaining traction. I think if you look at the trend, the next generation of voters is not as hung up as you are on this term.


The question remains, where do nations which have a mix of publically owned means of production, services etc....ie schools, military, fire departments, police, fit then? They aren't purely capitalistic nor socialist, but there are elements of both. The democratic socialist platform(or at least the platform of the most mainstream of these members) is a hybrid platform. The line seems to fall along what should be a right of the American citizen versus what is a commodity.

[SunSeeker]

143. Socialism is not "gaining traction."

The Democratic Socialists of American only get in the way of achieving these basic safety net programs and regulations of capitalism. DSA and the Greens and other third party spoilers only serve the interests of the GOP in taking away votes from Democratic Party candidates.

[JCanete]

144. Link:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/democratic-socialism-millennial-politics/index.html

[SunSeeker]

148. That poll just shows many millennials don't seem to know what socialism is.

As the article states:

More than any other generation before them, Millennials are OK with socialism. A 2016 Gallup poll found 55% of those then aged 18-29 said they had a positive view of it (it's worth noting 57% supported capitalism and 78% supported free enterprise). Compare that with those 65 and older, only 24% of whom had a positive view of socialism. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign was instrumental in mainstreaming Democratic socialism, but Millennials' economic situation also plays a role.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/democratic-socialism-millennial-politics/index.html

If 78% of millennials support free enterprise, then 78% are definitely not socialist. And as the article also points out, these Millennials are influenced by Bernie Sanders, who makes the inaccurate claim that the Scandinavian countries like Denmark are socialist. The Prime Minister of Denmark famously corrected Bernie on that point:

Bernie Sanders has long referred to himself as a socialist rather than a member of the Democratic Party, which has naturally led to a lot of questions about what socialism means to him. He consistently references the social models of the Nordic states — especially Denmark — as his idea of what democratic socialism is all about. But in a speech Friday evening at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said that while he's flattered to see Denmark discussed in a widely watched US presidential debate he doesn't think the socialist shoe fits.

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said. "Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

In Rasmussen's view, "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."
...
And Denmark has, as Rasmussen goes on to say a bit later in the talk, exactly the kind of single-payer health system that Sanders favors. But in Rasmussen's view, this doesn't amount to socialism at all.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders.

[JCanete]

150. No, you are continuing to narrowly define what is socialist, but don't seem to have the same

requirement for what is capitalist. What term would you use to refer to America and Scandinavian nations? Would you agree that their programs are more socialist than ours?


As to your point about what people know these days...I won't dispute that we've got issues here. I think the scariest figure is how many people don't necessarily think that we need democracy. But we're talking about whether or not the term is poisonous, to which this shows it probably isn't.

[SunSeeker]

151. America and Scandinavia have free market economies.

Scandinavian countries just do a much better job of regulating business by taxing them enough to supply the needed safety net (education, healthcare) and infrastructure (roads, courts, environmental protection) that a healthy free market economy needs.

I don't think they are any more "socialist." They are just more democratic. Hence, their policies better address the desires of the general electorate, as opposed to the moneyed elite.

[JCanete]

152. Not in all things. And regulation is a check on that free market. I'll accept that you don't think

the difference warrants categorizing scandenavian nations differently than us, but the fact remains that somethings we DO entirely socialize, or at least we have a social main-stream option that is designed for the public good when it comes to things we think should be rights in society. We do it with education and policing and fire departments and disaster relief, etc. city infrastructure, roads(as you stated) etc. Although these things are examples of socialism, you would not call them such? The thing is, they certainly aren't examples of free markets. You want to put them in an entirely different category and simply call them safety nets, but these could all be privatized fields and we continue to run up against the challenge of defending them, so how is it that even though they are government run institutions, they aren't examples of socialism?

[SunSeeker]

156. No, I would not call public services socialism. Scandinavia doesn't either.

Socialism is government cownership of the means of production. Socialist countries, the few that exist, tend to have pretty shitty public services.

[BlueJac]

129. Progressive Democrats

I see how the Regressives operate, they destroy everything the Progressive have built, and find ways to make things like they were, not better!

[ecstatic]

131. In general, we're unable to KISS.

Sadly. The more you have to explain what you mean by a term, the more you're losing.

[vi5]

132. For everyone keeping score here on DU...

...the new talking points are

"Words have meanings...."
"You can't just change definitions..."
"Socialism means sharing the means of production..."
"Shoving it down people's throats..."


I think I've only read a total of 5 threads today and they all had multiple people posting basically these same words and phrases, some of them multiple times.

But I'm sure all of that is just pure coincidence.

[NurseJackie]

142. So far it's just you. Nobody else seems to care...

For everyone keeping score here on DU...

So far it's just you. Nobody else seems to care about "keeping score". I guess it's not as important as all that.

[ck4829]

153. +1

[NurseJackie]

141. Vanity? For attention? ...

Why are some progressives so determined
to use the word "socialist"?

Vanity? For attention? To give the appearance of being "different" or "special"? For effect?

Something that I don't fully understand is the compulsive use of it. What good purpose does it serve to continually make the distinction. It almost reminds me of one of my neighbors... although she's nice enough... there's not a DAY that goes by, nor a single interaction I have with her where she neglects to mention that she's a vegan. I think she does it for attention and to make herself feel special and "better" than everyone else. ("Yes Doris, I know, you're a vegan. Everyone knows. Nobody cares. Enough already. You're not going to convert anyone by lecturing to us. Just stop it.'')

[ck4829]

154. Because in the near future; Fox News, right wing leaders, religious right officials, Trump, and

others will be screaming that the Democratic Party is "SOCIALIST", that the Democratic incumbents are all "SOCIALIST", that people running to unseat Republicans are all "SOCIALIST", that all Democratic voters are "SOCIALIST", and liberals are all secretly "SOCIALIST", and yes, they will call you "SOCIALIST" too.

Now we can choose to run and hide from this label and let it define us as we remodel ourselves in a vain attempt to not look "SOCIALIST" or we can choose to charge forward and win in November.

I choose the latter.

[pnwmom]

155. Adopting a label that doesn't describe us is the opposite of what we should be doing.

The Democrats who call themselves socialists are playing right into the GOP's hands.

[Devil Child]

162. Just another day of Red Scare frenzy on the Democratic Underground

Especially now, in 2018, with Trump and the GOP constantly sucking up to Putin and the KGB, no Democrat should be pushing a brand-name that is associated with the USSR, or with Russia. For the average, not-very-engaged voters, it just muddies up the water.

No thank you, I'll maintain my values and integrity and not compromise them for your insecurities or worries for what a GOP voter thinks.

[pnwmom]

163. The average American has no positive associations with the word "socialist" or "socialism."

And the words don't even accurately describe what most active Democrats support. Supporting the safety net is NOT the same as believing that the government should control the means of production.

It is self-defeating to link our "brand" with the Socialist party. The Dems are not Socialists.



From the platform of the SOCIALIST PARTY USA :

https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/platform

We are committed to the transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society

For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources


Dictionary.com

noun
a theory
or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

[Devil Child]

174. Government should control the means of production

I see nothing wrong with your bolded sections of the SPUSA platform. Not all Democrats are socialists but some of us Democrats are socialists. So again, I reiterate, I will gladly embrace the dread S-word and not give a shit about how that makes a GOP voter feel or "average" voter feel.

[pnwmom]

178. That's because you ARE a socialist. The vast majority of Democrats and Americans are not,

and using the word won't do anything to attract more votes to the party.

If you don't give a shit about how the average voter feels, then you don't give a shit whether we win or not. And that's a problem.

But I'm speaking to the Democrats who DO give a shit.

[melman]

173. +1

Except it's not even real worry. It's fake worry used as a pretext to bash.

[Devil Child]

175. You are correct

Concern trolling and hand-wringing for the purposes of telling a segment of the Democratic Party's Big-Tent of voters to STFU and sit down.

[DFW]

166. Here's a radical idea for you

How about calling our party the Democratic Party?

It seemed to work just fine for FDR. I still kinda like it, myself. Has a nice simple, catchy ring to it, ya know?

A few people are so hung up on labels. How about "Democratic People's Republic of Korea?" At least they got the "Korea" part right. One out of four. On the night before East Germany vanished, the last "leader (more of a caretaker at that point)" gave a speech seen in all parts of Germany. He said that for 40+ years they were living in a state that called itself "democratic" but was in reality never democratic ("DDR: German Democratic Republic)."

Once, some 35 years ago, I was invited by the Cuban government to visit Cuba. Since I had never been before, I asked, "how does that work?" Their rep in London (where I met him) told me, "hey there's no problem on our end." And so there wasn't. They sent word to the Cuban Interests Section of the Czech Embassy in Washington, and I walked right in and got my visa. While I was there, some guy walked in, demanding to be given a visa to visit Cuba because "¡yo soy revolucionario! (I'm a revolutionary)." The staff rolled their eyes, said not today, my man, and tried to remain polite. Like any consular workers, they were there to do the job their government sent them to do, and not accommodate every self-labeled "revolucionario" that walked in the door spouting slogans.

[Glamrock]

183. So what are we going to call ourselves after progressive is sufficiently demonized.

Sometimes you have to stand your ground. Besides, the number of people calling themselves socialists is growing.

[pnwmom]

184. Some word that isn't part of "Soviet Socialist Republic."

[Glamrock]

185. Sorry.

I'm not dumbing down the language I use for the ignorant. I still call myself a liberal. I refuse to call myself a progressive simply because liberal has been demonized. Ya gotta stand up to that shit. I don't hear any references to Republicans and The People's Republic of China. Why? Because Republicans don't run away from it like we do.

[pnwmom]

186. Sorry. I think it's dumb to alienate hundreds of millions of Americans

simply because of refusing to accept the dictionary definition -- and the Socialist Party USA definition -- of the word "socialist."


From the platform of the SOCIALIST PARTY USA :

https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/platform

We are committed to the transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society

For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources


Dictionary.com

noun

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

[Glamrock]

187. Do as you wish.

I personally want to alienate racists, misogynists, homophobes and nazis. Ya know conservatives. Those that would be most alienated by the use of the term.

[pnwmom]

188. Plenty of Democrats and Independents are put off by the term, and accept the dictionary definition.

[Glamrock]

190. And according to plenty of research and polls

That number is dropping. Embrace the future! Embrace the change!

[pnwmom]

191. Do you have a link for that, please? I can't find anything more recent than 2016.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/191354/americans-views-socialism-capitalism-little-changed.aspx

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even though Bernie Sanders, a self-described "Democratic socialist," has generated strong support for his presidential campaign, Americans' image of socialism is no better now than it was six years ago. Thirty-five percent of Americans have a positive view of the term socialism, similar to what was found in 2012 and 2010. The 60% who have a positive view of capitalism is also unchanged from six years ago.

[Glamrock]

193. I knew you'd ask

Dear sister!
Gallup
Democrats/Learners 53% favorable view
Liberals 61% favorable view

https://news.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx

From CNN
55% of millenials

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/democratic-socialism-millennial-politics/index.html

Washington Post on Gallup poll
47% would vote for, 50% would not
Underwater by three points, not hundreds of millions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f59af237eb71

On edit: hope this helps!

[pnwmom]

194. But all of these polls still show that large numbers of Democrats and leaners --

more than 40% -- are put off by the word.

Why use a label that puts off so many Democrats and leaners, when its dictionary definition doesn't even fit what most progressives mean by it (not the social ownership of means of production, but supporting things like Social Security, Medicaid, etc.)

[Glamrock]

195. Two years ago just as many were put off about single payer.

Now a majority are embracing the idea. All I'm saying is if you see the future changing, get in front of it, dig? Besides, if we play to the minority of Dems instead of the majority, we lose. And, no snark intended, if you got a more universal word to describe social programs, I'm open to it!