Printable View
Totally fair. Neither does "they don't consider themselves 'socialist'" either. Again, I have a hard time ever talking about "socialism" here because every single person in the world thinks of something different when they see that word. And that's all we're dealing with here in this forum and this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
You are correct: there is probably very little to be gained by any discussion which centers on the word socialist, or even by using Nordic countries as examples (or not examples) of socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
My understanding is that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is affiliated with, and has the backing of, the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). Clearly, it takes far too much energy for most Americans to educate themselves on what an organization like the DSA really stands for. I’m guessing those same folks would be hard pressed to know what any political party stands for — even their own.
I don’t know; maybe in deference to such laziness, the DSA should just change their name.
Republic (not Republican) is a synonym for oligarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
um noQuote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
I'd like you to say what a link is if it's not evident from the link itself. What point were you trying to make from this?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men
I think most people think of "socialist" as the nationalization of the means of production ... the traditional definition of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
I'm fundamentally NOT for the privatization of companies.
To some people Democratic Socialism seems to be more about the social backstop which is more in line with the Nordic model, but they are not calling it socialist so I think that would mean the DSA and Bernie are making mistakes in using the term "socialism".
I'm fundamentally FOR a strong social backstop (nobody should be denied health care - health insurance industry is a criminal conspiracy, UBI)
I mean this in a less antagonizing way than usual (I'm a dick on the internet, don't ever take it personally!)...but what is the point of this whole conversation? Genuine question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
Many in the DSA feel both Sanders and AOC are more conservative than what the organization largely stands for. You are not wrong.
I think a lot of people think like I feel like you think (correct me if I'm wrong), that being that "socialism" must be an all-or-nothing proposition. There are purity tests neither she, and especially he, do not pass. Many argue that he'd be to the right of MANY European politicians. Etc.
It just all comes down to a weird game of semantics. Like "capitalism", the word "socialism" covers a wide range. There's a lot of room under that big umbrella of a word for different thought. Or maybe the issue is more about like what percentage of a economy/government must be "socialized" to qualify as a "socialist country". You don't have to think we need to seize 100% of private industry and nationalize it to be a socialist. I don't know.
But again, I think that's mostly just pointless semantical nitpicking and not really worthwhile. But I do think Democratic Socialists of America is an apt name. :shrug:
I don't know man. Like I said, I'm not even sure what we're really arguing or what the point of this is. Who cares what they call themselves? Nothing changes if they just called themselves the Really Really Social Democrats or something. And at the same time, I think they're destigmatizing a word that desperately needs destigmatizing and that's good. There is a lot of good that socialism, to whatever degree, can bring.
Wish I didn't disappear for two weeks after that socialism thread was made.......I went back into it like a week ago and was overwhelmed and didn't know where to start.
This is the politics forum ... I think we are here to debate and discuss, if you get your feelings hurt you probably shouldn't be here. I have NO problem with people being dicks and being aggressive in their responses :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
I agree with what you said, but I think it's important that language really does matter. I suppose for some people "socialism" is a big positive selling point, the issue is I think that for a lot of people (like me) it's a major negative, because if you elect a stated socialist and are not for the fundamental tenets of socialism you have to then spend votes to counter them and what's the point of that.
Where did I insinuate that my feelings were hurt :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
I'm just asking what the point is of this particular debate is. Hell, it hardly has been one and wasn't really anything either of us started. I just don't really get it. To me it feels like people always trying to shape this as "unless you are for the forceful seizure and nationalization of 100% of all private entities", you aren't a socialist. That's weird. And I don't get the point. And it happens ALL the time.
I don't know. I'd just rather talk about the issues, what this current socialist movement is striving for...or really literally anything else than "he or she is or isn't a socialist". Who cares? It's all noise. And it's usually noise in some weird way to discredit the present movement here without actually critiquing their platform.
People can't separate that word from anything and because of it reasonable discussion rarely follows. I tell someone that I self-identify as a socialist and they lose their ****. I tell them what policy I actually support and, well, more often than not they don't. It's ****ing annoying. :laugh2:
I didn't mean YOUR feelings, I meant mine or the general "you".Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
When it comes to AOC the point of the debate is, I guess, that she was held up as a bright light of the DSA and it seems Dems in her state are already mad at her.
When it comes to the socialism debate, I don't think most people think it's 100% of all private entities ... I think most people are against the seizure of a lot of private entities individually, not en mass. There is some argument to make for health care, electricity, natural gas, and some fundamental services being nationalized ... I don't agree, but I can understand the argument.
My problem with most public political discourse is that it's so empty of actual solutions. And socialists seem particularly guilty of it.
So, ManRam, I'm not a socialist and I support guaranteed health care for all and UBI, and I believe that is all the social back stop we need and that I can pay for it AND make the government much much smaller and more responsive to the voting public all at the same time. Ask me how. I also think there should be an income cap to re-invigorate the middle class. I just need to be made emperor for a few months because it makes too much sense for the existing parties to agree with me, and I don't have near the money to force them to. :)
Of course they’re mad, they’re corporate Dems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
I don't know that a guaranteed healthcare for all can equal smaller government. When the government is involved things seem to get way more expensive and way more complicated which kills any efficiency. And given that there was panic over "Non essential" employees not having jobs just how easy is it to cut back government? Our politicians are so entrenched in this system change is a hope but never a reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
This popped up on my Google News feed (I'm not a HuffPo fan).
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0ca92c6dd0ce6
He talks a little about this weird issue.
I don't really know if I like or agree with this article, but it's just nice to see someone else talk about this confusion. Whether I agree with his conclusion on those two or not.Quote:
And yet in liberal and left-wing political discourse, the idea that Sanders and Warren are philosophical companions has become unfashionable. Jacobin, The New Republic, Splinter, BuzzFeed, The Week and The Guardian have all emphasized the supposedly critical ideological distinction between the two candidates: Sanders is an avowed socialist, while Warren wants to reform capitalism...
...For once, the big-brain intellectuals have it wrong, and the delusional, selfish plutocrats are right. Whatever Warren and Sanders say to establish their political brands, the two senators do in fact represent a very similar way of thinking about politics. That’s why billionaires hate them both...
...There are real differences between the two candidates (technically Bernie hasn’t announced yet). But these are differences of temperament, style and strategy. Sanders and Warren, in fact, see the world in very similar ways.
The trouble for leftish intellectuals is a confusion over the terms “socialism” and “capitalism.” Both words are extremely flexible, and their meanings shift with political currents. In an American context, it has never been easy to distinguish between socialism and reformed capitalism ― and committed capitalists have denounced both with vigor. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was condemned as a socialist by congressional Republicans. In the 1940s, American conservatives viewed the social safety net in Britain and the Stalinist Soviet Union with almost equal alarm. By the 1950s, Herbert Hoover had concluded that the words “liberalism” and “socialism” really just meant the same thing.
So, yes, Bernie Sanders has long been a champion of labor movements, protest marches and democratic socialism, while Elizabeth Warren is an academic wonk who talks about restoring competition to markets and making capitalism more accountable. But when it comes to their most detailed policies to date, both support an array of trust-busting, tougher regulation, wealth redistribution, public options and, where appropriate, nationalization.
I can do it ... but it won't happen without a major change in the systemQuote:
Originally Posted by Hatch