2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy can't Americans be open minded about socialism?
IMO It's ridiculous to think that this country, that has largely accepted gay marriage, voted a black man as president twice, and is now in favor of legalizing marijuana cannot be open minded enough to elect a socialist. I think it's just another talking point for Hillary supporters to suggest that Sanders can't win simply because he's a self described democratic socialist (but of who's views are actually of a social democrat.) Nevertheless, people who are so fervent against socialism don't vote Democrat anyway (as anything that Democrats do to help people would be seen as "socialist".)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randys1
(16,286 posts)
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Is still a pretty fresh part of our political memory. Socialism is a step on the political spectrum towed communism.
We may like our socialist programs, but we're far from ready to call ourselves that.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)A history of socialism. Founded on capitalist principles.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)So called Social Democracy makes more sense to me.
If this is something you feel important to you, then you need to start from the bottom up.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It would gain even more influence if Democratic Socialists were full members of the Democratic Party and joined one of the existing Caucuses or started their own within the party.
brooklynite
(94,728 posts)You can build a social safety net on capitalism and make progress...
You can insist on calling it socialism and lose...
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So privatize SS and Medicare and everything else?
Republican much?
brooklynite
(94,728 posts)Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. are social safety nets built into a capitalist economy. They can be expanded and improved. Or, you can insist that they be called "socialism" and lose your support.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)AKA privatization.
Social Security, Medicare, Food stamps run anathema to Capitalism.
You are just making things up, aka throwing turds trying to make something stick.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)The population hears that on a daily basis and don't want to have another program that doesn't pay itself and have to borrow from. Plus ACA although good is not as wonderful as sold. I think the populous is suspect of adding to programs at least until these three are maintained properly.
Kingofalldems
(38,476 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So privatize SS and Medicare and everything else?
Republican much? How far to the right will you guys go before you realize you have essentially become Republicans?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)make elements of democratic socialism more acceptable. There are some democratic socialists on city councils (like Seattle) and mayor of some cities (liberal ones).
I don't think he'll win the democratic nomination but I think his candidacy is helping pave the way for more acceptance to these ideas. I'd like to see many more democratic socialists running at local and State and federal levels. And more participation in politics by leftist, and more people voting for the most liberal candidates available in every election.
As for your question as to why, I guess a lot of people get scared when 'socialism' is used as a dirty word, usually by the 1% or by republicans. I don't think it's happening too much any more, and will happen less over time. Partly because younger people aren't as scared by it. And partly because younger people aren't watching or listening to a lot of the hate radio and mainstream corporate media as in the past.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Boomers aren't, but they are a shrinking part of the population. Among people younger than boomers, socialism is not a boogeyman.
This is backed up by polling. Millennials are actually fond of socialism.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Most Americans, me included, would fight such an idea to our dying breath.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Vinca
(50,303 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That's a fact.
Don't like it?
Rebrand your movement because as long as you call it socialism, people will go by the definition of socialism.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)If you can't engage in honest debate, why are you here?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Via HEAVILY REGULATED Capitalism and a strong focus on the commons.
Red bait much?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He only altered that when he decided to run for president.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Thus your not being providing any linkage or evidence.
McCarthyism
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)18 years, Sanders listed himself as a Socialist for party affiliation in the United States House of Representatives. He never once listed himself as Democratic Socialist.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Or go home. No linkage = no position.
Democratic Socialism is an ideology, not a political party.
http://www.dsausa.org/
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)He is specifically talking about Democratic Socialism.
Now go on back to your McCarthyism.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)HE's the one embracing the term. So long as he does so, I go by the actual definition of the term,
And so will most of this country.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Like I did.
ShrimpPoboy
(301 posts)Although I don't believe that's what Sanders is advocating.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Social Security isn't socialist since it's not a universal entitlement and because you can get more if you pay more to your individual account
Scuba
(53,475 posts)BlueStateLib
(937 posts)One has to earn social security credits, the government doesn't give them out. FDR rejected the Townsend Plan for his plan that you pay into for 40-50 years and only 1 out of 10 people lived long enough to collect.
The basic idea of the Townsend Plan was that the government would provide a pension of $200 ($3500 inflation adjusted) per month to every citizen age 60 and older. The Townsend Plan, despite it popularity, had three fundamental flaws that made it an unworkable idea. The Plan called for a monthly pension of $200 per month to be paid to every American age 60 or older. In 1935 there were approximately 12 million Americans age 60 or older. Virtually all of them would be eligible for the Plan under its very liberal eligibility requirements. Thus, the Plan implicitly promised to raise $2.4 billion in revenue each month from this 2% tax (which would total almost $29 billion annually). To put this in some perspective, the total income of all of the people of the United States in 1933 was only $46 billion. A Plan that would pay $29 billion of that amount to the 9% of the population that was over 60, would thus shift about two-thirds the wealth in the economy from workers to retirees.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/townsendproblems.html
Scuba
(53,475 posts)BlueStateLib
(937 posts)If you are working and paying into Social Security, some of the taxes you pay go toward survivors insurance. In fact, if you currently have life insurance, the value of your private policy is probably less than the value of the survivors insurance you have under Social Security
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/survivors/
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
INdemo
(6,994 posts)
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)He incorrectly identified Denmark as a socialist country, and it's prime minister corrected him. The PM, himself from the center-right liberal party, further pointed out pointed out the absurdity of confusing democratic socialism with Social Democrats, which throughout the world are centrist parties, not socialists and not leftists. Since then we have people ridiculously claiming FDR was a socialist.
When people do not know the basic difference between socialism and capitalism, they are not socialists, regardless of what they claim. As Marx made clear, socialism is a stage of history that follows capitalism. It cannot coexist with capitalism. Trotsky believed that socialism could not exist as long as capitalism was the dominant economic system throughout the world, and that socialism in the USSR depended on permanent revolution that would bring down capitalism entirely. When an economy is based on markets and profit, it is capitalist and by its very nature exploitative. The capitalist countries of Northern Europe that Bernie calls socialist have robust safety nets to assuage the excesses of capitalism, but they do not challenge capitalism itself. In fact, some of the world's biggest multinational corporations are based in those countries.
The antipathy toward socialism in this country has a long history. Most DUers certainly are old enough that they were raised under the Cold War and many were educated in the wake of McCarthyism. The very notion that people identify as socialist a president whose primary mission was to shore up the capitalist state shows how little exposure they have had to socialist thought and Marxist history. Socialists in this country were arrested, blacklisted, deported and executed. That is why there has not for decades been a true left in this country (most recently those who claim to be leftists or "progressives" spent months arguing against the most significant leftist activism we have seen in a generation.) For much of the twentieth century, it was illegal to be a socialist and one risked their life and freedom for being one. Now, decades later we have people who have never read Marx, who show no understanding of the history of socialism in this country, even the periods they lived through, asking what's so bad about socialism. The only reason socialism is even an issue is because Sanders refused for decades to join the Democratic Party and instead called himself a socialist, despite the fact socialists throughout the country do not see him as one. Here we have a man who was an independent most of his political life, who caucused with the Democrats, while openly expressing contempt for the party, and voted with the GOP on some issues like immigration and guns. That is a function of personality, not ideology.
Hillary supporters did not carry out the Palmer Raids. They did not break the union movement in the early twentieth century by systematically deporting socialists and anarchists. They did not imprison Eugene V Debs and hundreds of other socialists. Nor did they wage the Cold War. That was carried out by the Democratic Presidents that many here herald as great heros--JFK, for example--during the period that many here openly long to return to. They were joined in that effort by Republicans and, early in the 20th century, Progressives, all of whom saw socialism as a threat to capital and thus the American way of life.
I get that you have decided anyone who doesn't prioritize putting your favorite member of the political elite in the White House above all else is the enemy. You can try to blame the majority of Americans for refusing to vote as they are told, for not being on board with "taking the country back" from the rabble that currently makes up the majority of Democratic voters. None of your efforts to target Clinton supporters--far more of whom come from the working class and rest of the subaltern than Sanders supporters--for refusing to place the interests of the white male bourgeoisie above all else. People can celebrate Bernie's appeal to Trump supporters and find common ground with the far right which shares their contempt for American public as it exists today. There is a certain disconnect, however, is celebrating Bernie's appeal to the furthest right, most hateful group of Americans and then asking what's wrong with socialism. To then insist Clinton and her supporters made up the socialist boogeyman, simply because you have managed to go through your entire life without learning anything about the history of socialism and the Cold War in this nation. It wasn't Clinton and her supporters who spent the last eight years calling Obama a socialist. I, nor any Clinton supporter, bears responsible for your own refusal to learn any of that. Yet here I find myself and other Clinton supporters scapegoated, all because you refuse to engage even minimally with any of that history.
Lastly, socialism is premised on the notion of human equality--from each according to his means to each according to his need. Scapegoating the poor, women, people of color, the working class, and others who do not go along with a certain agenda is as far removed from socialist principals as anything. Believe me, I would never dream of calling you or most Sanders supporters socialist.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)JI7
(89,264 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Wrong. He called Denmark a "Democratic Socialist" country.
Difference being the means of production, which in a Democratic Socialist country is controlled privately via heavily regulated Capitalism.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)You know that there is an ocean of difference between what we have now and "from each according to his means to each according to his need." That is Marx's utopia of communism, socialism in its absolute fullest expression that would take decades if not centuries to achieve, by Marx's own word.
Bernie is advocating reregulating capitalism, increasing the safety net, making educational investments in the workforce, and reinstituting haigher taxes for those making millions and billions - hardly what you express.
I haven't seen anyone claim 'Hillary made up the socialist bogeyman' other that you in this post. Supporting Wall St and the MIC to the degree Sec. Clinton does is not "refusing to place the interests of the white male bourgeoisie above all else." You may be sadly surprised when that is exactly what she puts above all else in the long run should she win the Presidency.
Socialism has been the professed boogeyman in American lore, basically as a counterbalance to Soviets before Perestroika. It has been made into a loaded word that for many Americans, has been a non-starter. The US HAS made lots of progress though. If LGBT rights and a black two-term president as possible, consideration of some socialisat principles may be possible too.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)president. Noone in 1980 could have imagined the things that have happened in 2008 and 2012. Times change.
The socialist "problem" would be a bigger deal if Sanders was advocating a socialist revolution, but no he's not and he's more of a social democrat. The socialist "problem" would be a bigger deal if the Republican Party didn't dilute the meaning of the word "socialist" with their persistent attacks of Obama being a socialist. The media has pulled all stops in branding Bernie Sanders as a socialist (though to their credit a "democratic socialist", but still a socialist) and yet Bernie still beats Republicans in head to head matchups.
I get it that there was a huge stigma with the word "socialist." But I don't see enough reason to throw away the one chance anyone has had in a long time to vote for a real politician that cares about the people, not about rich donors, big corporations, or their own career prospects. I refuse to be cynical enough to believe that this is how politics should be, and that the American people have to continue to suffer as a result. Some dramatic action needs to be taken to put America back on course and to deal with climate change, and it's not going to happen with politics as usual. And IMO its embarrassing that Republicans are more willing to throw out their leaders than Democrats, suggesting that Democrats are more approving of corruption than Republicans.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)but don't blame me because socialism is a dirty word in the US and your candidate insists on invoking it unnecessarily.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)but she hasn't and through her actions has done quite the opposite.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)But Clinton is winning the support of the majority of Americans, particularly those from the working class, poor, and people of color, including women. She is meeting with and listening to voters all over this country. No, she isn't going to win every vote, but polls have consistently demonstrated that she is earning the overwhelming majority of Democratic votes, which is among the reasons Sanders is working on courting Trump supporters.
Everyone gets one vote. No more, no less. You're just going to have to come to terms with the fact that yours is no more important than that of any other voter.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Would you agree to a uniform global wage, in which everyone lived off the same amount? That would almost certainly require a significant reduction in the lifestyle of many here. The median global wage is about $10k a year. Would you want to see the end to all private enterprise, not just major corporations but any enterprise based on profit? Would you want the state to determine which occupation you should hold, what sort of education you were fit for? Would you want a society in which artists and authors were expected to serve the cause of international socialism rather than bourgois indulgences like personal fulfillment and self expression? Would you be willing to do away with capitalist-based notions of individualism in favor of a collective ethos where the common good takes precedence over individual liberty and choice? In my years posting on DU, I have never seen any indication that people would be willing to sacrifice any of that for the common good. I see anger at those who have more, with little acknowledgement that many of us have exponentially more than most of the world's population.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)He pushes Democratic Socialism, with heavily regulated Capitalism.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)A person I know commented on my Bernie sticker stuck on the car. He asked if I knew Hitler had been a socialist. This guy is alternately a Republican or an Independent depending on the news of the day. After I rolled my eyes I tried to explain things to him, but it probably didn't take. You can't cure stupid.
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Workers will eventually control the means of production and oust the leech class of capitalists, but it is still a ways out.
Bernie's election could actually prolong capitalisms tenure, much like FDR.
brooklynite
(94,728 posts)"The Revolution" is the wave of the future...and it always has been.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)They just don't know it.
I have yet to meet a republican who does not like having paved roads and controlled intersections or a emergency response for when things go bad or a powergrid, running water etc...