For clarification purposes... what exactly is "socialism" again?

[ck4829]

Because you know, listening to Republicans and the 'liberal' media screaming about "SOCIALISM!!!", one gets the idea that ensuring we have a government that serves the people and actually provides any services to people, any and all of Barack Obama's policies even before he said what they were, not acting like a diagnosed full blown sociopath, and not wanting to sacrifice your children so a billionaire can get a little bit more money are all 'socialist' practices.

If we're not reducing the power of their straw men, in other words, if we are remodeling and constantly restructuring ourselves and moderating ourselves because of this constructed "SOCIALISM!!!", we've already lost. It's just like with "open borders", any policy we make and can possibly make regarding "immigration" will be declared "open borders". The best way to fight back against this and win in November is to take away the potential to harm us politically that smears like "OPEN BORDERS" and "SOCIALISM" has rather than running away from the labels and restructuring ourselves in response to the labels.

[el_bryanto]

1. In the face of Trump, party leaders have little to no reason not to keep center left programs

front and center. I will be supporting democrats, even though in many ways their beliefs aren't in line with my own. When the choice is between insanity and centrism, well you have to support centrism.

Bryant

[manor321]

2. No. We shouldn't use the label.

It means individuals don't own any property themselves. That's what it means, among other things.

It's ridiculous to try to engage in some sort of mass education project instead of the much easier path of using different words.

[ck4829]

12. Mass education project - That's exactly what has happened though

It's a clear example of classical conditioning... conservatives say "socialism" and we have a segment of people who boo and hiss in response, no matter if it's actually socialism they're booing and hissing to and another segment goes along with it so they don't look 'weird'.

We can cause the 'extinction' of this though, but not if we're running away from this.

[DetlefK]

3. Socialism is a real word. You can read about it in history-books and dictionaries.

Yes, socialism DOES have a definition and no matter how hard you scream, you cannot change that definition just because you want to.

Socialism means that private property gets taken away from the citizens.
It means that their property gets redistributed to a government-owned entity, run by the government.
Those used to be your cows out on the pasture. Now they are the community's cows and the government decides what happens to them.

That is socialism.

[ck4829]

16. Nope, no mention of cows here

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/381775-gop-state-candidate-refuses-to-apologize-for-calling-parkland

Socialism is also apparently being angry about school shootings.

[vi5]

4. It means whatever Republicans want it to mean.....

Publicly run and socialized military and police? Those are A-O.K. Socialized healthcare and education: BAD!!

The fact is that we had a President who adopted moderate Republican economic policies and was called a socialist at every possible juncture, without a single bit of fact checking or pushback from the media and in many cases not from Democrats or the president himself.

So if no matter what we do we are going to be called socialist and have idiot low information voters believe it, why not fucking own it? Most of the civilized world is pretty heavy socialized except America. Point this out. Sell it.

[dembotoz]

5. exactly

[ck4829]

7. Oh Thank God, really. I thought I was going crazy for a second there.

We can't be the only people who see this though.

[melman]

20. Yes

Lately there's been a lot of nonsense about 'this person or this thing is going to get torn apart in the conservative press'

I mean wtf! The conservative press! That's the standard now?

As if they're not going to try to tear everything apart.

And as if anything they don't tear apart should be anything someone should want.

I mean...it's just...the conservative press! I can't get over it. People have been saying that for real.

[standingtall]

6. Socialism cannot be defined there are many different variants of it

The right wing manipulated msm has a lot to do with the stigma of the word. If any elected Democratic politician does not wish to be called a Socialist many news pundits will still not hesitate to call either him or her a socialist or at least call their policies socialist. How often have we seen news pundits call an elected republican a fascist or at least call their policies fascist?

[ck4829]

8. Yes, thank you.

[yallerdawg]

9. It's always been a critical issue at Democratic Underground.

Did you know we have a "Socialist Progressives" group? Participation indicates .

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1024

[oberliner]

10. High taxes on wealthy in exchange for a large social safety net and public services

Pretty sure that's how it is meant by those who use the term to define themselves today.

[Trust Buster]

11. Socialism to me is where the far Left and the far Right interesect on the back end of the political

Spectrum.

[klook]

13. "the fat Left"

Hey, I'm trying to slim down!

[Trust Buster]

14. Thanks

[Recursion]

15. I mean, I'm old school: workers' control of the means of production

And if that's done by means of a state apparatus I would further subclassify that as "communism" (though Marx used the two words interchangeably, I find that a useful distinction)

[tonyt53]

18. Same here.

[johnp3907]

17. Tom Joad asked that question once.

He was told: “a red is any son-of-a-bitch that wants thirty cents-an-hour when we're paying twenty-five!"

[jalan48]

19. Labeling in place of discussing is an age old political trick. Make liberal a bad word then any

idea brought forth by self-identified liberals will be a bad idea. Make socialism a bad word and the same thing happens. Unfortunately, many voters aren't too bright.

[mia]

21. Came of age in the 60s and admired the goals of Socialism. Then I moved to Miami.

I know many Cubans who lived through Cuban dissent into "Socialism". I've heard stories about their real-live experiences. How they voted for Castro and then slowly became disenchanted when they learned what "share the wealth" really means.

I'm no longer inspired by Utopian promises or any labels that include the term.

"Socialism" has taken on a sinister meaning for me, and I can see how it may drive voters away.

I was once a Bernie supporter, even though I knew about what had happened in Cuba.

Now I'm suspicious any threads that mention his name or "Democratic Socialism".

[haele]

22. Politically or economically? There are at least two different "colors" of socialism.

Little "s" socialism is an economic system where the public owns the means of production, instead of the means of production being in private hands. It's mostly practiced as social programs that promote "the commons" - where there is an infrastructure system in place to insure and maintain public health and wellbeing that is subsidized by taxes or fees that everyone pays into one way or another. This system is managed through public representation that does not produce any profit that will not otherwise be returned to the system - either to administer it or to provide the actual infrastructure and services.

Big "S" Socialism is what George Orwell - who would be considered a progressive - warned against. It's the political version of socialism in which a supposed meritocracy will provide the representative hierarchy in which an organization can be governed, and in which everyone has a say.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work - not historically. Most Socialist organizations tend to be quickly taken over by managers who cling to their positions long after they have long outstayed their actual political usefulness to the organization as a whole, or are taken over by populist dictators who use "the will of the majority" to gain and hold onto personal power and prestige over their fellow political "leaders".
It is difficult for people to give up power, especially if privileges and potential profits are involved. The idealism that political Socialism professes to have always ends up with in cliquery as "leaders" always end up wanting to get paid "appropriately" for their leadership abilities over the majority, and political minorities always end up losing.
After all, the Republican Party started out as a quasi-Socialist organization supporting meritocracy, promoting support of workers and businesses. And it quickly devolved into the Chamber of Commerce organization where the more money and social status you had, the more influence you could buy...

The difference between economic and political socialism is why I am always careful to say I'm a Social Democrat, not a Democratic Socialist. The difference is something that always has to be re-learned every generation.

Haele

[NCTraveler]

23. In the US.

It's something that only exists in the minds of right wingers and a few others who have been simply sold on the brand.

[CrispyQ]

24. Let's do a refresher course on capitalism, while we're at it.

Privatized profits. Socialized risk. That is not capitalism & letting the free market work & every republican & TV pundit should be called out on this whenever they chortle about their "free market system."