Everyone OK with this?

[trof]

[True Dough]

1. Socialism is only an evil word

if taken to extremes, like capitalism.

[safeinOhio]

9. Just say

Democratic Socialism.

[calimary]

18. NO.

#1 - adding "Democratic" to "Socialism" - at least in my opinion - casts a shadow on the word "Democratic" and therefore also to all things Democratic - like our party and those of us who are members of our party. The word "Socialism" is still toxic, whether or not the belief systems and concepts behind it can be viewed, separately, as something positive. You throw the word "Socialism" in, and it's a red flag to too many millions of Americans for whom the entire concept has been corrupted by some very focused propaganda by the bad guys, over decades. DECADES. Deprogramming from that will also probably take MORE DECADES. Too many Americans have been taught to view "Socialism" as something bad, anathema, completely opposite their notion of what's "American." The word "Socialism" tested horribly with massive numbers of potential voters, regardless of whatever appeal any candidates flying that banner might have had. The word "Socialism," all by itself, was a colossal buzz-kill. A total non-starter.

#2 - also in my opinion - too many bad feelings left over from the campaign and adversaries to the nominee. I think we all need to start FRESH on this one.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

30. Agree

Bill C.'s vast R-W conspiracy people have adulterated many good words in our language. It's now hard to converse without constant checks of context on what's said. I suspect that's the way they want things to be. Volumes could be written on how they've twisted our common dialog.

In addition to "democratic" and "socialism", here's a few more to ponder: Conservative, welfare, freedom, liberty, Republican, tax, government, values, Christian, religious, and compassion.

[LiberalLovinLug]

31. I get what you are saying

RW media, including the corporate owned MSM, has so brainwashed the citizenry, over decades, that they have tarnished the word forever.

But maybe...maybe if only it could be explained differently. That the armed forces tax money is spend in a very socialistic way. And that benefits the taxpayer. That every military base, does not have to find a manufacturer for new uniforms for instance. There is a centralized system where new uniforms are ordered for multiple bases, across the country by a manufacturing company bidding on prices for a larger bulk order. The same is true of course on a larger scale for ordering, say, tanks and planes for the whole US armed forces. That by pooling money together for a common goal, it ends up cheaper for everyone. That surely the medical health rights of the citizens of a country is just as much a right as military security. And why not pay for it in the most cost efficient way possible?

And that this form of funding is only applicable to areas that benefit the public at large. Like public schooling. Roads and bridges. Police and fire fighting. And of course the military. That capitalism would still be alive and well in every other sector.

I don't know, I just think, like gay marriage, or pot legalization has shown us, there can be a dramatic shift, a zeitgeist if you will at times in history. Personally I was absolutely shocked, in a pleasant way, that the Bernie Sanders campaign was not decimated as predicted even in here by some, by the independent voters and small r Republicans but instead did better with them than the "it will never happen" Hillary campaign.

[StrictlyRockers]

32. You can't use the old OK sign any more, now it means white power.

This used to just mean "OK", now, thanks to the RWNJ's appropriating previously cool shit, you can't use the "OK" sign w/o people wondering if you're a Nazi.

?itok=TJGk1O_l

https://www.adl.org/blog/no-the-ok-gesture-is-not-a-hate-symbol

[calimary]

34. Only problem is - there were MANY attempts to explain this concept.

There were LEGIONS of explanations - look, Social Security is "Socialist." Our many government programs that you like and want and depend upon, THEY'RE "Socialist," too. Like that Medicare? Yep. Those roads and highways that we all use that were paid for by public funds? Those, too. Tax money? Yep. That annoying stuff that pays for everything from the National Weather Service and NOAA and - um - FEMA - to our military and all the expenses thereof. That as well. The basics of it IS as you say: "by pooling money together for a common goal, it ends up cheaper for everyone." The infrastructure that provides the very underpinnings for our way of life - that was built by the New Deal and other efforts, is paid for by OUR TAX MONEY.

Hell, as a Californian, living in what's called a DONOR state, I frankly resent knowing that my tax money is going to the red states who always run in the red and always take and need more than the tax money THEY pay in. I'd rather keep that tax money here in California. But I realize that the money needs to be spread out and shared - BECAUSE THERE'S GENUINE, LEGITIMATE NEED out there, beyond just my state line. Whenever I found myself wavering and not caring about what went on in other states, all I had to do was remember my kid, and his band buddies, in their little tour van, driving on roads that some states didn't bother repairing, or (Heaven FORBID!) bridges and overpasses that hadn't been maintained properly for years or hadn't been brought up to code. You bet I worried about that. My daughter and her husband and his family live several states away and you better believe I expect that infrastructure to be damn well maintained so THEY don't find themselves collapsed into a river that cuts through part of their small town. And hell, if that particular red state (unfortunately), doesn't want to pay or raise taxes to cover those repairs, well, okay then. Use my California tax money! It's gotta come from somewhere - if they're gonna be cheap-ass and pennywise/pound-foolish in that state.

We've explained this and explained this and explained this. Every so often, there were TV segments about it. Explaining and explaining and explaining.

But by Jove that didn't work. Just didn't. NOBODY paid any attention to the multitudes of pleas and efforts to educate and illuminate. These idiots just weren't gonna take delivery on a single syllable of it. Further proof of that was how all the "...ists" sort of melded together as one big ol' nasty epithet of libtard horribleness. Socialist-Communist-Fascist. These and more, all got lumped together in one big batch of toxic swill, indistinguishable one from another, and guaranteed to help turn voters away from voting for Democrats. Those terms all mean the same thing, right? Uh - NO. But you'd never guess that from hearing the teabaggers talk and misinterpret and blend the baloney, and dumb it down so even the dimmest of the reactionary dim bulbs on that side could "understand" it. Remember all those little old ladies in their wheelchairs and walkers at teabagger rallies - holding their signs that read alternately "NO Socialism" and "Keep your hands off MY MEDICARE!"

[LiberalLovinLug]

36. "Keep your hands off MY MEDICARE!"

lol. Yes that was a telling sign.

Maybe not use the word socialism then. Medicare for all works better. But it can't be that hopeless. You will always have that hard core 20% that simply are too brainwashed and mentally challenged to ever accept anything that Rush and Hannity don't want either. But I still think that Democrats could take every opportunity, on every talk appearance, to simply state these truths about how things that Americans hold dear like the military (or overly dear as a result of those same media companies), would cost even more than they do now if they were not funded in a socialized way.

They should not be afraid to also enlighten the views of what you raised. That Blue states, in general, help to fund the Red states in a quazi socialized way already. That "redistribution of wealth" is already happening. And this would have even more impact because it is an embarrassing truth for the GOP.

But they have to be all in, with a singular voice, and relentless in the tactic, for it to work.

[Igel]

55. You're trying to impose a definition on a word with a continuum of meanings.

Yeah, the RW tainted the word. But let's not forget the US Socialist R. That's an extreme. Maduro's socialist. Words are set by usage, and that's part of the usage. Saying "that's not real socialism" is dangerously close to "he's not a true Scotsman".

And let's not forget that we had public schools, a military, a road system, customs, and a lot of other things before "socialist" was a word of any import in English, before the New Deal. If you make them socialist then you wind up saying that Geo. Washington was socialist. The Russian zemstvo wasn't socialist--it was fostered by antisocialists and condemned by self-appointed socialists, but it "looks" socialist to some. But that's another extreme. Both extremes stretch the definition past the breaking point.

I'm boring and simple. I like the old fashioned denotation "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." (some random web definition, but it's a good enough version).


There were a number of socialisms around at the end of the 19th century. The Czech popular (narodni) socialism took one form; the French another form. But you don't get "socialism" as entailing the provision of social services until the 1920s, as far as I can see. By then "community" was, as in the USSR, taken to mean "government." It's a distortion of the older meaning and the theory that we still often cite that assumes the older theory, but there it is.

Social services got backed into the definition around the 1920s, I suspect. For some, that's the main gist of the word. I'm still old fashioned. If you're not asking for control over production by some government or collective, it's not socialist.

[LiberalLovinLug]

57. Thanks for the interesting response

Yes, there are various definitions AND interpretations of each of those definitions based on historical context, and who is doing the defining.

I, and Bernie Sanders, and I think most on the left know how impossible it would be today to have a true Marxist socialist form of government where they own the banking system, right on down to overseeing every factory in the country. Russia kind of ruined the idea for everyone. With help of course from the western elites that created the white army to invade and thus fomented a more militant draconian government in response. Creating the opportunity for assholes like Stalin to take hold. And with him went any hope of a truly socialist egalitarian system. And every right winger since has used Stalin's Russia as their bogey man example of "socialism". (Although today it might by Venezuela)

I am of course not using it in that pure original form but the European amalgamation of capitalism and socialism. Where they are for the most part capitalist societies. And the rich still hold a lot of sway. And the opportunity for corruption exists. But they are smart enough to realize that some things should be financed in a socialistic way. Some things should not be ruled by the profit margin, because they are set up for the benefit of everyone. Like public education, infrastructure, police, armed forced etc... and of course medical care.

Its just that last one that America still hasn't figured out yet.

[tiredtoo]

39. The word "Democratic" already has a shadow over it.

Witness the election results for the last 20 years. Losing state governorships and state legislative branches. Do you have a better idea?

[leftynyc]

2. Both Texas senators

Cornyn and Cruz voted AGAINST funds for the NE to clean up after Sandy and held up the relief effort for months in their pettiness. Now they're begging us for money for Texas. Give it to them but I hope that point is made right on the floor of the senate.

[unblock]

6. we should agree to pay for the relief effort but make these two beg for it on their knees.

i mean literally, i want them on the senate floor on their knees begging for money.

and apologizing to the victims of sandy for their selfishness and short-sightedness.

[leftynyc]

10. I want that apology (n/t)

[Achilleaze]

15. Double Ditto

...waiting for republicans to give an honest sincere apology...

[Number9Dream]

11. Ditto... Apology on national prime-time TV

[dchill]

25. +1,000,000!

[Sanity Claws]

26. and recognizing that NYers are real Americans

I am so sick of those ignorant blowhards acting as though NY is not part of "real America."

[unblock]

27. and that somehow gays in the northeast are responsible for bad weather!

[calimary]

35. AND Californians. WE are "real America," too, dammit!

Btw - I just heard Ted Cruz interviewed and the anchor did ask him about the time he and his Senate partner voted against funding for Hurricane Sandy victims. He did NOT apologize. And the irony is still escaping him. He gave some sniveling pannywise/pound-foolish excuse because somebody had tacked on some amendments that sought funding for other projects outside of the needs of the Hurricane Sandy area.

FOR PETE'S SAKE!!! When there's a desperate need, is THAT the time when you nickel-and-dime people like that? And loudly claim you're a Christian? And better yet - claim even more vehemently that you're "pro-life"?

I think not. You send the help. You send the aid. You write the check. You make the donation. And you get the help to the people who need it, dammit. And you ask questions later - after the lives have been saved and the people have been rescued and have received the help they needed. I'm sorry, but a severe natural/national disaster like this is NOT the time to be a bean-counter. Not when lives are at stake. Unless you're willing to concede you're not really a Christian and you're not really "pro-life."

[syringis]

3. I don't know...

...why some people are so frightened by socialism.

Human is not for sale. so must be his basics needs.

We need, all of us, everywhere in the world, strong and responsible governements. By strong, I mean a Administration that cares and protects the citizens. That takes in charge our basics needs. Health, education, safety are not products for buy or sell. It must be in Administrations hands. Yes we need to pay more taxes, it is eventually the cheaper for everyone.

It is not socialism for me, it is simply humanity.

I'm not sure I have expressed correctly my thoughts, sorry.

My best wishes and thoughts to you texans, from Belgium.


Je ne comprends pas ce qui fait si peur dans le mot socialisme. Nous avons besoin de gouvernements forts et responsables. Je ne veux pas dire des gouvernements répressifs mais des gouvernements qui prennent en charge leurs citoyens et qui couvrent leurs besoins primaires. L'être humain est par définition, hors-commerce. ses besoins élémentaires doivent l'être aussi. La santé, la sécurité, l'éducation ne sont pas des marchandises que l'on peut commercialiser. Ce sont des droits absolus sans qu'aucune condition ou contre-partie puisse être demandée. Alors oui, ça passe par plus d'impôts, entre autres. Mais au final, c'est ce qui coûte le moins cher à tous et assure une bonne qualité de vie. Pour le reste, on commercialise ce qu'on veut, où on veut.

Si au lieu de toujours penser en termes de pouvoir, nous pensions enfin égalité entre tous les humains en respectant la diversité, nous n'aurions plus besoin de nous ruiner tous autant que nous sommes en armements stupides, en guerres inutiles et j'en passe..

[lunatica]

4. You expressed my thoughts perfectly

You defined what government is meant to do. Unfortunately too many Capitalists think government should privatize everything so they can make a profit.

Thank you, and welcome to DU!

[syringis]

16. Thank you Lunatica

I try to do my best but it is not always easy. I do not have a very extensive English vocabulary.

It is not a problem for casual conversations, despite some pretty good hurtings to the English grammar, spelling and ponctuation rules (Maybe I should not mock so often the right wingers ), all in all, you understand me and I understand you. Which, after all, is the most important, I think. It is a bit more difficult when it comes to specific subjects that requires a more elaborate vocabulary.

[Glorfindel]

5. You expressed your thoughts beautifully, syringis, and I agree with you 100%

[syringis]

19. Thank you Glorfindel

I really appreciate DU.

Your are friendly, welcoming and a living proof, if needed (which is really not) that American are not the "ugly under educated" as many believe. I truly hate stereotypes and fight them as hard as I can.

I feel deeply sorry for what is happening to you since the rad waste called prez, reached the Oval Office.

What a nightmare !!! I have never seen any leader destroying so fast, so conscientiously, the dignity and the image of his own country.

[A HERETIC I AM]

12. Don't worry if your English is correct.

It is a hell of a lot better than my French, and I would suppose the vast majority of the people reading what you write.

[syringis]

21. Thank you

Well, it is probably easier for us, since we have to learn, at least one foreign language. In EU, we have 24 different ones.

[calimary]

38. WELL said, syringis.

I think you're exactly right.

We NEED good government. I feel like asking all those "I hate the government" folks - so you're okay with anarchy then?

I rubbed it in with a friend of mine who voted for trump. We were texting back and forth about it and I threw in "I can't wait to see how all those 'I hate the government' types start clamoring for NOAA, the National Weather Service, and especially FEMA!"

I remember when Katrina happened, and the most valuable (although, I bet, fleeting) comment came from some man who was in a neighboring state to Louisiana, when the storm had moved inland from New Orleans and was starting to affect where HE lived. And he conceded that "well, I guess there ARE times when you need the federal government." No DUH, dude. Particularly when the disaster crosses state lines, and proves, rather painfully, that no one state can handle all the work or cover all the damage or attend to all the needs of the many who are affected and afflicted.

My husband wondered aloud just this morning - how long before Texas might find it has to levy a state income tax on its citizens to cover all the expenses incurred from Hurricane Harvey.

[LittleBlue]

58. Because it sometimes leads to dictatorships and starvation

I don't know why some people are so frightened by socialism.

Maduro calls the nightmare he's inflicted on the Venezuelan people "socialism". It's often associated with authoritarians and quasi communist ideology.

[SCVDem]

7. Strings

You get aid when Cornyn and Cruz resign.

Your choice!

[IronLionZion]

8. There is profit to be made in clean up

Trump will no doubt make sure he and his friends get plenty of profit from it.

At this point, socialism might be better used to rescue people first. Then capitalism can efficiently fleece them on the rebuilding efforts or have their homeowners insurance deny payment because it doesn't cover floods or some such nonsense.

Not enough people know that their insurance doesn't cover flooding. And a catastrophic flood like this is the worst time to find out.

[Achilleaze]

13. OK

[SHRED]

14. I have a retired military son-in-law

Who decries Socialism and loves Capitalism.

I informed my daughter that it won't be socialism that comes for their full military benefits. No...that will be those seeking privatization for profit...the Capitalists.

[lunatica]

17. Many people think that if we were a Socialist Democracy that they couldn't be rich

They're wrong, of course, but it is their fear. I think that's the actual reason so many Americans are against Socialism. Except, of course for Social Security, having police and fire fighters, free schooling, roads, general infrastructure, social services, etc.

[EX500rider]

20. You are thinking of social programs, "Socialism" is the government owning the means of production.

[oberliner]

23. Yeah - I was thinking the same thing

Whoever wrote this does not know what socialism is.

[leftstreet]

33. ... well, the 'government' being the public n/t

[EX500rider]

37. Which ends up being the govt in any population bigger then a village...

Last edited Mon Aug 28, 2017, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

.....the people can't get together to decide every little thing in a population of millions, so you delegate authority to a govt.

Which tends to turn out poorly with Socialism. And no, the Scandinavian countries aren't socialists, they are capitalists.

[leftstreet]

41. I've never seen anyone fight about use of firetrucks n/t

[EX500rider]

42. Me neither but fire trucks aren't Socialism.

The govt owning the means of production is.

[leftstreet]

44. In the US, we are the government

Socialism is 'public' ownership

If you'd feel more comfortable with Ford or GM owning the firetrucks and their labor...good luck with that

[EX500rider]

45. The US govt does not own Ford or GM, so not a socialist govt.

We have a capitalists system, if it was socialist the govt would own the means of production, which has zero to due with firetrucks.

[Leith]

48. No, That Is Not Socialism

That is communism. They are not the same.

[EX500rider]

50. No,

Socialism is govt owning the means of production, communism is the govt owning everything.

Definition of socialism

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

[IronLionZion]

56. Why narowly focus on production?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

The government does own, administer, and distribute services.

Whatever words you want to use for it, we as liberals tend to be in favor of government services in areas where the privately owned services are not helping the people who need it.

[EX500rider]

59. Goods and services are not the same thing.

Of course the govt does services, what else would do besides defense?
But goods are privately manufactured and distributed in the US, and firetrucks and highways are not "Socialism" .

[Cryptoad]

22. If a Republican tells you to ,,,

shelter in place during storm,,, best get ur ass to higher ground by any means!

[hamsterjill]

24. As a Texan, I really want to ask the secessionists this question.

n/t

[vkkv]

28. Let's see to who the clean up money GOES to !!

The little guy?

I have my doubts.

[trof]

29. Boots-on-the-ground will be companies like this:

FEMA will put out contracts at bid to debris removal companies like Crowder Gulf.
http://www.crowdergulf.com/people.html

[rock]

40. Some problems are best approached by a group

where we 'pool' our resources. And sometimes that group is the largest group around. Social security falls within this concept and this works pretty well.

[LanternWaste]

43. Far too many idiots believe the market is the cure for all things worldly.

Far too many idiots believe the market is the cure for all things worldly. Pretending a symptom is the cure is of course, idiocy squared.

[ancianita]

46. Americans are learning: Solidarity is the essence of social-ism.

Decades of right wing cold war propaganda are set aside as hard times drive the public's awareness toward working for the greater good -- that's when labels like "equality" "solidarity" or "socialism" turn real.

[lordsummerisle]

47. k&r n/t

[Honeycombe8]

49. Repubs want to do away with FEMA, don't they? nt

[DonaldsRump]

51. I myself am an ardent believer in ....

capitalistic socialism, except on every other 3rd Thursday of months beginning with J, when I veer to socialistic capitalism.

[LovesPNW]

52. They exploit the ambiguity of the word 'socialism'

On the one hand, the state owns all means of production and deny the ability to own property.

That's the scary one ... It's 'communism-lite'

On the other hand, legislators in a democratically elected congress write laws that promote a social benefit to citizens - a duly elected president signs them into law.

That's the one we like .. it's called Democratic Socialism, and it's been a regular feature of our history for over a century now.

When we speak of Democratic 'socialism', they turn it into 'communism-lite' to strike fear into the hearts of the ignorant. They've been doing that for decades.

It would help if our party would make the distinction crystal clear, but, for whatever reason, the definitions lie in the weeds, unable to speak for themselves without a voice to compel understanding.

[tiptonic]

53. Cuts

Lets cut taxes, that always helps. Then cut the budget. That will help get people off the top of their houses. Still i feel sorry for the poor people, who don't have their private planes to get out of town, like the republican leaders do.

[Nitram]

54. Yup. If you think libertarians are all about helping people in desperate need of help,

think again. And then there are the conservatives. They actually believe in reducing people to desperation and making a profit off of it.