It puts people before profits.

For capitalists, profits come first.

that has us most concerned.

Why anyone would attempt to link themselves with the most blood-soaked ideology of the 20th century is beyond me.

We are a liberal party, not a socialist party.

to capitalism v. socialism is to repeatedly question the legitimacy of their various parts.

that thinking is really "out there"

But apparently it's all good that people are dying from lack of healthcare or because the profit margins of the companies that make insulin are apparently more important than human lives.

Weird how more and more people are rationing insulin... sounds like something that should be happening in one of those awful socialist countries, yet we're not a socialist country. People have made that clear, so I expect nobody to backtrack and somehow blame something other than the profit motive for this.

the country could not afford enough insulin and it would be rationed.

It's just the means of everyone not getting insulin is different. Not better, just different.

From the link:

In the case of your comment, these strong-arm socialist dictators came into power and then were corrupted absolutely by absolute power. They called themselves socialists in the same way the Nazis called themselves socialists, or Joseph Stalin called himself a socialist. Problem is, they weren't socialists. They were strong-arm dictators who just called themselves socialists.

But if you say socialist policies, and by that mean programs such as unemployment insurance, worker's compensation insurance, medicare and social security, then those things save lives, not end them.

This is why I'm making this comment in reply to you. When Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, he is referring to a market economy that has high taxes that finance a strong central government that provides a regulatory structure to mitigate the excesses of capitalism, and provides services to the public where the profit motive is in conflict with the public good. Services such as health care, old age pensions, disability pensions, unemployment insurance, worker's compensation insurance, prisons, police forces, firefighting forces, K-12 and state colleges and universities.

So, I definitely repudiate people who call themselves socialists but are actually totalitarian dictators.

As to nomenclature, what should we use? Because right now we have a bunch of neoliberals who have created an evil, predatory capitalistic system through privatization of stuff that should not be privatized, thoughtless and feckless deregulation, and tax policies that will lead to the gutting of safety net programs. This is EVIL, and when the Republicans solemnly intone, "'Murika ain't never gonna go sosh-a-list," and people cheer, what should we say in response?

Do we call ourselves social democrats? Progressives? or what?

Conflating the two is highly problematic as there is a huge gulf between them.

In answer to your question, I call myself a liberal Democrat.

But I stand by what I said that I want and advocate: ...a market economy that has high taxes that finance a strong central government that provides a regulatory structure to mitigate the excesses of capitalism, and provides services to the public where the profit motive is in conflict with the public good. Services such as health care, old age pensions, disability pensions, unemployment insurance, worker's compensation insurance, prisons, police forces, firefighting forces, K-12 and state colleges and universities.

What do we call THAT?

but not socialist. The right wing calls that "socialist" because labeling and repeating it over and over is their things.

So, then, would that make me a liberal social democrat?

Because, as has been pointed out, we don't want to say 'democratic socialist.'

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2019, 11:08 AM - Edit history (1)

with socialism least we be smeared as that 24/7 by the repugs. Then we will lose.

which is all of them, and the usually severely impoverished and dangerously threatening authoritarian governments (usually RW) that typically succeed them really don't like socialism. Before you leap in, you should examine first-person accounts. Climbing out without money for gas or other means of escape isn't so easy.

in fact, citizens in many have single-payer and free college.

I'm saying this to say words matter. Candidates who call themselves democratic socialists will be smeared as socialist/commie/pinko/rats 24/7 on FOX and hate radio and will lose as there are years of footage available of Sanders declaring himself a socialist over and over.

Candidates who don't and haven't can win and install social policies that benefit the 99% once elected (see FDR and LBJ).

They're all capitalism based. If someone wants to start a business, he or she does.

that benefit the 99%. Words matter. Many use the term social democracies.

Candidates who call themselves democratic socialists will e smeared as socialist/commie/pinko/rats 24/7 on FOX and hate radio and will lose as there is years of footage available of Sanders declaring himself a socialist over and over.

Candidates who don't and haven't can win and install social policies that benefit the 99% once elected (see FDR and JFK).

The VA is socialized. Social Security and Medicare are not. Isn't it past time Sanders' followers found out what socialism is and is not? And maybe checked with those European nations instead of just letting Sanders feed them what he wants them to "know"? That's what trumpsters do.

Sanders is deceiving people when he tells them democracy is socialism and socialism is democracy, roads and schools are socialism. No, they're not. But strictly for a laugh, not information because there is none, here's one of Sanders' many "simple and straightforward" descriptions of democratic socialism.

socialist in nature, controlled by the government or not. The point is a huge percentage of voters view socialism negatively because of decades of conditioning by the media and education system. That's just fact even if many younger people don't hold the same view, they and their low-voting numbers won't make up for heavily-voting older people who do—even among Dems.

Smarter to keep that quiet, get elected, then work to get those policies installed.

clearer, repugs will paint Sanders as the socialist he's claimed to be for decades and he will lose if he gets the nomination.

we look these days we see enthusiastic true believers in their chosen leaders who don't know what socialism or fascism are and refuse to listen to anyone but those leaders.

They've way too much in common. In the past a lot of ignorant but ardent followers have crossed from far left to right right leaders many times and of course will again.

They are liberal.

Socialism means the government owns the means of production. Period. Don't let right wingers make that confusing.

for by our taxes which serve the common good. Otherwise everyone would have to build and maintain their own roads, sewer systems, disposed or their own garbage some way, pay for private police and fire protection and snowplow their own roads in the winter—so please get off the simplistic rhetoric that the narrow "means of production" definition is all it's about when socialized services and programs are socialistic aspects of our society, otherwise everything would be privatized and we'd have to pay someone a profit individually for everything—which is pure, unregulated capitalism.

Who wants that? And, btw, these are not repug talking points, just a fuller understanding of how things work in our system which is regulated capitalism with some socialized aspects.

liberal programs that benefit society. You're letting the cons use that term for public services and that's what they try to do. To make it sound like the USSR or their current favorite, Venezuela.

we go back to one of FDR's first and most successful programs paid for by contributions from workers for their own good—Social Security. It's not called liberal security.

the government runs it (that is how the right tries to define socialism) but the money that goes into it is earned by capitalist activities, private enterprise (or government jobs, but the taxes paying for them come from the private sector activity).

And btw, I'm not a Sanders supporter. I'm a Democrat but I know not to let repugs define what is is.

is different from "socialist." Right wingers attempt to confuse others by conflating socialism with a social democratic system that runs on capitalism - capitalism with a generous safety net.

We like to be rewarded when working hard. We dislike the idea of everyone getting the same remuneration regardless of the skills, experience, and effort.

Sanders will not be the nominee. Period. But I can see Whiny Donny banging his head against the wall that, had he known that Sanders would be his rival, he would not have asked a "favor" from Zelensky.

But should millions live in poverty so Jeff Bezos can be a billionaire?

Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common within the socialist movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

====

And it really does not matter what you or I are thinking. If he is the nominee, you can bet that this will be the campaign slogan of the Rs.

Melania's dream of returning to New York will be gone.

Don't compare it to social democracy, which IS based upon capitalism and accomplishes a lot of good.

Always a result of a revolution or a coup always run by a “strong man.”

Every formal economy the world has ever known - from humankind's earliest civilizations to capitalism - was imposed on resisting populations with violence. Your observation is completely meaningless (and not entirely accurate, either).

The essence of socialism is the subordination of economic matters to democracy (with many competing ideas about implementation), and that - in fact - is very popular. There's broad popular support for universal public services and things like minimum wages and progressive taxation.

Where has socialism ever worked?

Don't say Costa Rica, a country with it's own problems, but which is based upon capitalism, and where egad! egad! the government invests citizen's retirement funds in capital markets.

I don't recall being asked a first time (although you did direct that question to someone else).

Discounting anachronistic interpretations of the past (e.g. egalitarian hunter-gatherers), socialism has only ever existed as an aspect of mixed economies operating under the auspices of global capitalism. In those cases, it works just fine. Can a fully democratized industrial economy "work?" We don't yet know for sure, but I don't see why not.

People have a natural tendency to look out for themselves, family and close friends. So when a person gains power in a socialistic system, the benefits of that person having that power only extends to a relatively small number of people. Capitalism, in comparison, allows anyone with a good idea to attempt to disrupt set in cohort systems.

If people had an overwhelming tendency to share gains as wide as possible, then a socialist system would indeed be far superior to a capitalistic system, but we don't have people naturally acting in a communal fashion (they do when laws, taxing systems and regulations force them to, but seldom on their own in large numbers).

I welcome this discussion if you want to have it, but that argument doesn't hold water. What do you think "socialism" is? What do you think "human nature" is?

A publicly owned utility is socialism in action.

The USPS is another.

The VA is still such an example.

My contention is that the Government can do a better job of providing social services than any private entity.

And yes, some capitalists have done much good, but many put profit above all else, to the detriment of the majority. Amazon is convenient for those who purchase products, but terrible for the majority of its workers whoa re poorly paid and often rely on welfare. And it is bad in that Amazon escapes taxation through a variety of means, which in turn pushes the tax burden on to the rest of us.

Socialism is a beast that has never worked anywhere in all of history. Social democracy and quasi-capitalism have plenty of working examples during that same time period.

it is hard to argue back that actual socialism has failed - Sweden and the UK are not socialist. This is the problem. Letting the right define socialism as being liberal capitalist policies, not actual socialism.

Those immigrating legally are the wealthy elite and are going to vote GOP regardless. The people who came here illegally are mostly poor people fleeing from countries where there are right-wing oligarchies (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Columbia), and either they cannot vote, or if they have since become citizens they are not as afraid of the red boogieman like the elites leaving Venezuela.

I don't really care about the opinions of people who long for the good ole days of the Batista Dictatorship.

The younger ones are actually more likely to vote for a democrat.

The Democratic Party is a big tent.

Living in Costa Rica. Totally Socialist country. Everyone sorta poor. Everyone in good health. Beautiful teeth. Educated.

I think people use labels way too much.

Socialism is not inherently bad. Democracy not inherently bad. It’s corrupt government that’s bad.

Eastern Europe, China, Indochina, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia... the immigrants from many countries have a knee jerk reaction to the word "socialism", having experienced first hand the shortcomings and pitfalls of the system that is associated with the rhetoric they now hear from the left. I don't really know how, or whether, they can unlearn what they have lived, but hearing the all too familiar proclamations again will definitely not do the trick.

They can vote for the guy who wants to send them back to their "shit hole" countries as their fascist savior put it.

You Biden backers are the reason Democrats struggle- rather than fight or reframe the GOP talking points, you run with them. It's fucking weak, and I would rather not vote for a candidate in the primary who is like the orphan Oliver asking Moscow Mitch if he can have some more.

GUESS WHAT - if Biden wins, the Republicans are going to define Biden as the next coming of Lenin anyway, and all the red baiting you did to Sanders is going to work against you. So it's probably best not to antagonize 20% of the Democratic base a very small percentage of the Hispanic vote who are not likely to vote Democratic anyway because they are either voting for lower taxes on the wealthy or against abortion.

Alienate enough people, and who cares if they don't like it!

And then blame it on us Biden backers for articulating the problem. If only we kept our eyes closed and our mouths shut, Democrats wouldn't struggle, right?

Mmmmm-kay!

It's not a matter of how the Republicans are going to define Sanders or Biden, it's a matter of how believable they will be when they do it. It's probably just me, but talk of a political revolution fuels the GOP talking points way more than all the Biden backers put together .

Oh, and just curious, which GOP talking points am I guilty of running with? Was it the mention of numerous failed Socialist states? I can fix that and mention all the successful socialist states, but how will that affect the immigrants who don't come from these successful socialist states? Do you think they will be convinced?

The Biden trolls seem to rather want to piss on other Democrats than fight Republicans.

Don't confuse democratic socialism with social democracy, they are two totally different beasts.

It was the shop shelves with nothing on them, restaurants that ran out of lunch items by 1 p.m.; the secret police poking and prodding, not to mention following people; the run-down cities and bomb-damaged buildings that dated from World War II that had ended 25 years previously. But I was lucky. As an American, I was free to go back to West Berlin at night where there was enough to eat and much better beer. The stuff in the East must have been made with bad water.

It was eye-opening.

socialists. nazi party used the word socialist in the german name, then there is the soviet union socialist crowd, and the castro/guevera bunch of serial killing sociopaths, plus a handful of others

those are where socialist got a bad name.

It builds a hierarchy that is answerable only to itself. Capitalism destroys poorly functioning hierarchies and replaces them with systems that work better.

There is no incentive to go above and beyond in socialism, that gains a person nothing, unless that person is one of the "chosen".

In socialism wealth gets concentrated in few hands much more than capitalism. Higher ups get nice homes and food, working class faces empty shelves and poor living spaces.

libraries, national parks, highways, the VA, lots of things our government, local and national, are involved in. We will never become a Socialist Country. Expanding healthcare to involve the government and helping our citizens is not going to make us a socialist country, and frankly I think the government needs to be involved in a few more like public utilities.
People need to get a grip on reality.

Calling social programs and infrastructure "socialism" is a right-wing talking point.

Let's not emulate their falsehoods.

Are all by definition "socialism", because they are services owned/run by the government. Those services could be privatized in a purely capitalistic country.

Not socialism. Please don't use right-wing talking points.

and companies get something in exchange for giving money.

The Republicans will use it against any and all of our candidates. The real problem is the American media's unwillingness to contest the right-wing framing of economic discussions.

in a national election. People may like programs but if you can successfully pin that label to a candidate- it's over. The coasts may be an exception. Try it and see what happens. Now, the GOP always uses it but it seldom sticks in any significant way...

Last edited Sat Dec 28, 2019, 12:10 AM - Edit history (1)

See Sanders videos on youtube. BTW, Biden has always been a unon-favoring, blue-collar Democrat, which is why trump wanted the Ukrainians to smear him.

He's their most formidable opponent and they know it.

to politics and getting involved have no problem with the "socialist tag"

There are socialists and non-socialist progressives like Biden, Bloomberg, Booker,. Buttiegieg and Klobuchar.

...whether it’s true or not.

And then being absolutely shocked that that was a turn-off to black voters. Sometimes we get a little too in-tune with our own echo chambers.

And the women's revolution, which was a good thing, many women want to be out in the workforce, and that's great. But the reality is, it now takes two people incredibly long hours hours to earn enough income to pay the bills, which raises other questions about child care and what happens to kids when they're not getting the attention they need."

If both people in a couple working is possible, it becomes mandatory, because the two-earner couples bid up the housing prices. Warren wrote a really good book on this years ago.

and the nostalgia for the times when one salary pays the bills and "many women WANT to be out in the workforce" rather than NEED to is very fifties. As is the comment about children not getting attention from mothers. Bernie doesn't know that deindustrialization began in the 60s and not because of 90s trade deals.

Yeah, I completely agree.

It's sliding rightward that's actually doing it. And feeding the Republicans narrative is not going to help getting the line back to where it was 50 or 60 years ago in supposed "conservative economic" times. Feeding this narrative will bite us in the ass when we need to repair the damage.

...when republicans call us Communists, we call them Nazi's...when they call us Socialists, we call them Fascists...no matter who our nominee may be, republicans will use the Socialist/Communist label, guaranteed...

...I'm telling you, old school labels don't mean much anymore...people under 50 have been living all their lives in a broken capitalist system that's hasn't worked very well for them...they're tired, stressed, financially challenged and need a dramatic change...they're interested in a different way of doing business, a different way of structuring the system so the 1% stops stealing 99% of the wealth...can you blame them?

…major problems have accumulated over the past 60 years that demand Progressive solutions...the American people understand this and are embracing these Progressive solutions as witnessed by the popular rise of Bernie Sanders...the American people intuitively understand the only antidote to capitalism is Socialism...

...Commie scares may still work in the over 60 crowd, but even then, there are many people like me who never bought that bullshit...any system can be mismanaged...any system can be exploited...any system can be made to be corrupt...

...let's start talking about the Scandinavian countries...

Case in point, the idea of involuntary unemployment, there are economists who doubt it exists. I can tell you though, it's a reality.

I don't think I'm alone when I say this...
I want to put food on the table
I want to make sure my family member with a rare disease is seen as more important than a profit margin
I don't need to come home and find the light switch doesn't work
I don't want to be gaslighted and told my period of involuntary unemployment didn't happen
I don't need the prices of my drugs to be artificially inflated because... reasons
I am tired of hearing "despite the strong economy", that we have a "strong economy"... with more and more asterisks that just all happen to involve the lower classes

Instead of arguing over labels and the need to fight for an illusory "middle class", who will work on those things?

Since the depression we have developed a new model of governance yet to be defined. The old labels are obsolete and non descriptive of where we are and where we need to go.
Terms like "socialism, communism, capitalism, etal" are fitting for a post industrial revolution era but not for the present era.

Social(ist) Security
Affordable Care Act
Unemployment Insurance
Disability Insurance
Department of (Public/Socialist) Education
Department of the Environment
FDIC

Why is it socialism when our taxes go to programs for We the People, but it's just good business to bail out the crooked banksters and incompetent automakers? How are farm bailouts not socialism if medicaid is? When the right calls us "tax and spend democrats" why don't we respond with "tax CUT and spend republicans?" Why are we behind the 8-ball on framing every issue? When are the dems going to get a fucking marketing department?

What with Fascism beginning to rear it's ugly head again.

dictatorships are the most common evolution. In fact, usually, increasingly authoritarian and then dictatorial LW leaders have become RW leaders to keep power, or lost control to them, long before it's admitted that the socialist revolutions have failed.

Sanders keeps pointing to today's Europe, but the socialist revolutions of Eurasian nations all failed many decades ago. And the Scandinavian nations are not and never have been socialized.

Its wrong, and wrong in ways that are frankly offensive to those who were victims of fascist regimes in places such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile and the like. Most of the time it was a failure of democracy in being able to resist foreign intervention and/or support by the United States of right wing authoritarian regimes. Was Allende a dictator?

I mean, to make a analogy, this is like saying a woman caused her own rape by wearing a sexy dress.

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2019, 07:26 AM - Edit history (1)

existing governments, including democracies. Those whose ignorance and resentments lead them to support either of our two current populist leaders should be afraid of what they're part of. OURS has been a model for the entire world, but its enemies inside and out are doing severe damage.

Sanders doesn't badmouth Democrats because we're really just Republicans. He does it because he's extreme in his views and resents that the two-party dynamic our democracy has created has been too stable to fall to the the socialist destruction of capitalism he's always openly claimed is necessary. Just as in 2016, Sanders would sacrifice the rescue of liberal progressive government by Democrats in 2020 to his own pursuit of power if he could.

He's always been that way, and there's no excuse for not recognizing him for what he's both freely admitted, before he apparently learned not to, and demonstrated more than once. We have populist movements on both left and right. Left may be far smaller and weaker, but our intelligence services say Putin's working to join its useful idiots with those on the right to form a majority that can take down our government.

And, no, socialism is NOT really just democracy, and democracy is not socialism. Democrats are not Republicans, and Republicans are not Democrats. No matter how often over many years he's tried to deceive people into believing both.

no less. In addition, you make it seem like he wants to be dictator, are you so lost as to not understand how opposition works?

Also, which democracies were overthrown, can you give an example of one?

Socialism is an economic system, a democratic economic system at that, you need to understand the terms you are talking about before attempting to debate them.

There's so much misinformation about both socialism and Latin American politics (and the US role the latter), and it's enormously disappointing to me how many truly good-hearted people have swallowed the bullshit whole.

Its mind numbing and hair pulling in much of its stupidity.

I get your analogy. It's so hard to have a conversation with someone about topics like these when the other person not only lacks certain information, but the things they think they do know are just plain wrong. I'm often tempted to suggest a few books to read, but I doubt many people would ever take me up on it.

I admit that I am biased in that I and a good number of real Democrats have been working hard to turn Texas blue. After the 2010 election, the GOP had 101 seats in the Texas House and the Democrats had 49. During the 2018 elections we flipped two congressional seats (Lizzie Fletcher and Colin Allred) and 12 state house seats. We are 9 seats away from taking control of the Texas House. The DCCC has targeted six congressional seats in Texas and we are hopeful that MJ Hegar can defeat Cornyn

I am working on two state house races and one congressional seat. I have contributed to four congressional candidates and three state house candidates. I will be training poll watchers for a state house special election that occurs at the end of January in a week or so and will be the voter protection head for that campaign. I want these candidates to win

If Texas is a battleground state, then the GOP will have to devote significant resources to Texas. No GOP candidate can win the electoral college if Texas is blue

If Warren or sanders is the nominee, Texas will not be a battleground state. MFA is unpopular and taking away private insurance coverage would kill down ballot candidates in Texas.

Hopefully Joe wins Iowa and we can move that much closer to nominating the candidate with the best shot at beating Trump.

Not me, I have been lucky, but to say that this country (and its massive imbalances) does not induce/infuse PTSD into people daily is wrong.

Status quo is great for many but a suffocating pillow over the face of a close to majority of people in this country.

In the context it is being used by Democrats, it does not mean what Republicans try to slap on it. They want to conjure up images of old style Soviet or Chinese communism, the kind that comes with dictatorship as the form of government. No one is advocating for that here. Even Sanders and Warren are barely getting in the ball park of "socialism" as it is practiced in Western Europe.

If the last election, and this one, doesn't convince people that our public education system needs to beef up the social studies requirements and make two years of government and economics and one year of comprehensive American History as a high school graduation requirement, then we deserve what we get.