Socialism, defined as the gov't owning the means of production is almost nonexistent in this country.

See this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=148924

Did you even read it?

an absolute capitalist/libertarian society, no?

What we have here in the US (and most places) is a mixed economy. Markets/capitalism play a role (a big one), as well as socialism.

We don't live in a socialist society and if you use their broad definition of it, then they are socialist as well.

Not that it will do much good against the magical thinkers but you might dent it.

Federal gov spending is about 20%. It was in the 40s during WWII.

A government-managed safety net isn't socialism. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution (industry and business) are collectively owned and controlled. We don't have that kind of system and nobody is even advocating it. European countries that are held up as examples of successful socialist countries (the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark) are actually constitutional monarchies with democratically-elected parliaments that have created robust social safety nets under a regulated capitalist economic system. While there may be other, looser definitions of socialism, in the collective mind of the American public the word carries connotations of Stalinist collectivism and is therefore politically toxic.

My underlying point is that no matter how you want to define socialism, the word itself is politically toxic because of its Cold War connotations. Democrats should find another term for FDR-style social welfare.

Talking about "socialism" makes people think about collective farms and gulags, not government-subsidized child care or a guaranteed pension.

Call Obama a socialist. It is the right that watered down the word.

The US locks up more people including more than Russia as far as Gulags go.

The median age of the US population is 38. Someone born in 1981 probably has some vague memories of the Berlin Wall coming down being a big deal when they were a kid, and that's probably about it.

safety nets because the money used for them comes from a highly regulated and taxed robust CAPITALIST economy.

Why is that critical piece of information tip-toed around silently?

Norway, for example, can offer generous benefits to its people not only because its taxes are high, but because a lot of money comes from the extraction of a shit-ton of oil from its off-shore territory in the North Sea. Stock in the oil exploration company, Equinor, is owned about 2/3 by the government, but some of the stock is owned by a pension fund - the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world - and the rest is traded on stock exchanges like any other stock.

it's good enough for us. And btw, LBJ contributed much to the social safety too so should we call ourselves Roosevelt/Johnson Democrats? Of course not.

And as far as Sanders and AOC calling themselves democratic socialists, it's proven not smart for Sanders because of the word's negative connotations for many voters.. The jury is still out on AOC with that labeling.

what do those of us who believe in universal healthcare, paid by our taxes, not by individuals, call ourselves. Obviously language is powerful.

If our party achieves those things we get stronger and attract more voters who will have benefited from Democratic Party policies, why complicate it with added words which might create factions?

We're Democrats I assume, especially if we're posting here.

If you remember Reagan and the “L-word”
Liberal is still a dirty to word right wingers.

Many young people have a very different take on the word “socialism”.

It’s also funny to hear people who wear shirts that say “I’d rather be Russian than a Democrat” spouting off about socialism.

He was working on universal healthcare before he died.

I didn’t realize it was part of Social Security deal.

But as always, anything designed to help people is met with cries of socialism


Which is kind of why I just don't mind owning the term. The people it bothers would believe it is the case regardless of what it is called.

That's closer to to the truth in my opinion.

I don’t follow your reasoning.

There is no socialism to drop.

Obviously a lot more Democrats relate to the word "liberal" than to "socialist" currently, but that is not the point. Words have true meanings and there is a price to pay when we allow adversaries define those meanings for us.We are in retreat when we debate on their terms. A mixed economy has both capitalist and socialist aspects to it. That is America.