OK, it's Fox News. Nevertheless,

[rogerashton]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/21/ocasio-cortez-raises-eyebrows-after-citing-national-park-as-example-democratic-socialism.html

"she took a leisurely stroll through Maine’s Acadia National Park, and declared it -- along with other benign Sunday stops -- an example of democratic socialism."

"She cited not only her visit to the park, but also eating a breakfast sandwich at a cafe co-op, and “supporting worker-owned businesses.” She also added as a “bonus” that she spotted a Planned Parenthood branch 'helping people, per usual.'"

Fox says she misunderstands socialism. I do think we socialists have a right to decide what it is that we believe in -- what is socialism -- and not to have other people 'splain to us how we don't understand our own ideas. (That's if we could agree among ourselves, of course, but of what group can that not be said?)

[gratuitous]

2. She had a breakfast sandwich?!

That's as bad as ordering orange juice with breakfast, isn't it?

We all know how weird that is, right?

[NCTraveler]

3. Do you think they charged her the $30 entrance fee? nt

[Mariana]

4. I have no idea. Did they? nt.

[NCTraveler]

5. I'm not sure. Thought that was clear. Maybe they let her save it for lunch. nt

[Mariana]

7. You only asked what the OP thinks.

I thought you might know the answer.

[NCTraveler]

9. I'm not sure.

Maybe she paid $60 so the car behind her could go in for free.

I just don't know. Still trying to figure out Democratic Socialism. Considering the parks are a part of it, sure sound like the Democratic Party of today and yesterday. Love it.

[pecosbob]

6. Give the R's a break...the Hillary-email thing is kind of played out

they need a new bad guy

[Hortensis]

8. Please, give democracy and government of, by and for

the people, most of whom are always among the giant mainstream in their thinking, some credit. It first became a national park in 1919 under Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, a progressive (and famously racist and religiously bigoted) conservative, with a Republican senate. Wilson, who notoriously had "no friends," was nevertheless intensely admired by succeeding progressive Democratic presidents FDR and Truman.

Who did NOT admire any of the three and spent most of their time opposing their policies? The fringe group of Who Must Oppose whoever holds power in any party in any era. In an era demanding progressive reforms, they saw themselves as The Only True Progressives, distinguishing themselves from the waves of inferior, corrupt "corporatist" progressivism in both the Republican and Democratic parties. But they made so much trouble by being unable to compromise and cooperate with other progressives that they personally achieved very little over that entire era of great progressive advances.

Doesn't matter the label, capital-P Progressive, Sanders populist revolution, democratic socialist, or whatever comes next, if the group has to dishonestly claim mainstream Democratic (and Republican) achievements as their own because they mostly don't have any, their real priorities are obviously not really progressivism or socialism.

We know ourselves and others by actions, not rhetoric.

I point this out for those who haven't figured it out yet, not for those who are unfortunately so truly sincere yet so unable to join with all the other factions who cooperate to achieve.

[rogerashton]

10. My point (I thought) was that Fox was undermining their own position

by quoting that particular bit. What AOC was saying, I think, is that socialism as she understands and supports it would be a mixture of organizations of different kinds, government enterprises (which the Park certainly is, and no less so if it charges a fee), worker ownership and other forms of cooperative enterprise, and nonprofits. Most twenty-first century American socialists agree with that. Fox News may say that socialism is something else, but however they spin it, by quoting AOC they were showing that socialists who are part of the Democratic Party (whether some of you want us or not) are something quite different than the conservative stereotype. And that's good for all of us.

Here is part of an email I got last week from The U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives:

Please join us in celebrating the first legislation in support of employee ownership in over two decades, and the first national legislation to explicitly name worker cooperatives as a priority for the Small Business Administration (SBA). This is a huge step forward for worker cooperatives, and we are proud to have played a role in making it happen.

Along with many allies in the field, our organizations worked in depth with the bill's author and sponsor, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, with DAWI doing research and education, and the USFWC doing advising and advocacy. We will also play a key role in supporting implementation. This is the power of an organized sector, and we're just getting started!

The legislation makes worker coops eligible for SBA guaranteed loans, in particular.

The U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives (USFWC) thanks U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in the Senate and Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez in the House of Representatives, as well as co-sponsors Senator James Risch (R-ID), Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and U.S. Senators Todd Young (R-IN), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) for their support of the first employee ownership-focused law in more than twenty years.

Bipartisan socialism!

[brooklynite]

11. No, you don't...

Our ability to communicate is built upon the shared meaning of the words we use in common.You don’t get to decide that a word which has had a specific meaning for decades that our culture has agreed upon suddenly means something else.

[rogerashton]

13. Who agreed?

There have been socialists who stood for worker control -- the Republic in the Workshop -- since Marx and Engels were graduate students. And anyway, words evolve. And you seem to agree with Fox News on this -- I'm sure that is entirely a coincidence.

[brooklynite]

15. I also agree with all the admired Social democratic countries that don't call themselves Socialist

Last edited Thu Aug 23, 2018, 09:27 AM - Edit history (1)

[rogerashton]

16. Frankly,

Brooklynite, if we were chatting over a glass or two of the beverage of our choice, I would agree that the word "socialist" is best avoided, because it means so many different things to different people. I have done that in my writing. (I believe it would be an abuse to use this board to tout my own writing.) It could be a problem, though, with no word for a social order in which government focuses on policies that improve the condition of the working class (who are the large majority) and encourages organizations such as worker ownership and evolution toward a system of autonomous economic organizations in which profits play little or, ideally, no role.

Anyway, given that people DO use the word in different ways, communication is not improved by diverting attention to a political debate over the meaning of the word. Communication requires attention to nuance. The problem (I think we can agree) is that voters may not attend enough to that nuance; but I don't believe that it will be helpful. for Democrats to join with the right in demonizing the word "socialism." In the late twentieth century, that demonization was inevitable, due to our geopolitical rivalry with the Soviet Union. Today we have a rising generation for whom that is history. Democrats have rightly put their hopes on that generation. If we persist in sneering at opinions held by a large part of that generation, it won't end well.

[brooklynite]

18. Because we need a common means of communication, we DO have an appropriate phrase...

“SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC”

Republican will still try to scare people, but I t doesn’t have a century of negative connotations that Bernie Sanders and AOC is I’ll never overcome.

[rogerashton]

19. That's a good

example of how words evolve. The German Social Democratic Party was originally the Marxist workers' party in opposition to the earlier democratic (and arguably somewhat utopian) socialist parties there. Marx wrote the Critique of the Gotha Program to try to persuade them to accept instead the Marxist program, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariate. That was pretty successful, but circumstances pushed the SDP in a different direction -- by the 1890's it seemed that the SDP might be able to advance its objectives better by contesting elections than by preparing for violent revolution. Bernstein, reviled by Communists as the founder of revisionism, worked with Engels and the Fabian socialists to create a program known in English as evolutionary socialism. It was officially rejected by the SDP until after WWII. In about 1950 Sir Arthur Lewis, as an economist in the Fabian society, described himself as a democratic socialist or social democrat, treating them as synonyms. In much of the rest of Europe "socialist" parties came to be referred to as "social democratic," though only in English. All that said,
1) There are some differences. People who call themselves "socialist"do not see the Scandinavian model as an endpoint. For example, worker ownership is not particularly common in Scandinavia -- more common here in the US, I suspect, since we invented the ESOP.
2) Republicans will demonize any term and any person that Democrats rely on.
3) Nevertheless I agree with you in that I do not use the word "socialist" nor "social democratic" in my political advocacy. Better to talk about specific policies, such as a wealth tax or a requirement that, as in Germany, large corporations be required to operate under codetermination.
4) There are some socialists who would agree with you that my position, which I think is a little to the left of AOC, is not socialist. Trotskyists for example.
5) All the same, if AOC and other younger Democrats choose to use the word with a different meaning than the one that you and Trotskyites want to attach to it, neither communication nor Democratic unity will be advanced by 'splaining to them that they are using the word wrongly.

[brooklynite]

20. ...nor will political advaancement be achieved...

...by them explaining why the word means something different than what the majority of voters think it means.

[rogerashton]

21. That is how words evolve. NT

[NCTraveler]

12. John McCain, the Democratic Socialist?

“In Arizona, we are blessed with breathtaking sites, including three national parks, 13 national monuments, two national recreational areas, two national historic sites, a national memorial, a national historical park and a national heritage area. Reflecting on the beauty of our state, former Senator Barry Goldwater once stated, ‘Arizona is 113,400 square miles of heaven that God cut out.’ That love for our state and its natural wonders, and the commitment to preserving them for future generations, is something shared deeply by everyone lucky enough to call Arizona home.

“As we mark the National Park Service’s 100th birthday, we salute the public servants who have dedicated themselves to ensuring these and other treasures across our country are enjoyed by generations to come.”

John McCain.

I'm glad McCain isn't running for shit and people are trying to define his positions as Democratic Socialism. Anything to keep the propaganda going.

Fox news is shit.

[demmiblue]

14. 3, 2, 1...

[NCTraveler]

17. Hey!!!

That’s not a leisurely stroll!

[oberliner]

22. Posting Fox News stories mocking Democrats is a thing now?