To right-wingers "socialism" means giving free stuff to people who don't deserve it.

[riverine]

Which is incorrect of course. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production to us academics and pedants. Therefore Social Security is not socialist because recipients earned it.

That is why referring to Social Security as socialist falls on deaf ears.

Point being that trying to educate people who believe in a 6000 year old Earth and think global warming is a hoax is itself a complete waste of time.

Don't believe it? Check out Huffington Post:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-bernie-sanders-promisi_b_9222644

[TygrBright]

1. And "people who don't deserve it" is a dog whistle for "BROWN people"... n/t

[Blue_Tires]

19. +1000

[ck4829]

22. Bingo

[Ohiogal]

27. 100% correct

I have been hearing this from certain family members my whole life ...."people who don't deserve it".

[brooklynite]

2. To left-wingers "socialism" means giving free stuff to people who DO deserve it.

Since neither of these definitions are correct, let's drop BOTH of them...

[zipplewrath]

3. Democrats versus republicans

Republicans wake up every day worried deeply that someone, some where is getting something they don't deserve.

Democrats wake up every day worried deeply that someone, some where isn't getting something they need.

[riverine]

11. That is good. Is it original? I got no hits on Google.

thanks

[zipplewrath]

24. Yup

Made it up several years ago when talking to a GOP coworker one day. He was going on about "freeloaders" and I was talking about the mentally ill.

[lagomorph777]

12. Social Security is an entitlement BECAUSE we earn it.

Don't let the Reptilians corrupt the English language, on top of everything else they've corrupted.

"entitlement" is a perfectly fine word that legitimately describes something earned.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I think it's a mistake for any of the Dems to allow the word "socialism" to cross their lips.

Most people, including some Democrats, don't know what it means, which allows it to be portrayed as Soviet-style collectivism. While no Democrat is advocating anything of the kind, the right wing will use it that way. It's also a mistake to use the Scandinavian countries as examples of successful "socialist" countries, because they are not socialist countries but capitalist democracies with strong social safety nets. Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production and distribution - in other words, the government owns the factories; there is little or no private ownership of businesses. The closest thing I can think of is the oil production company Equinor, 67% of which is owned by the Norwegian government, 3% is owned by the government retirement fund, and the rest is invested in stock in private corporations. The retirement fund, which is the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, is also invested, and the income from its investments is used to support Norway's generous government benefits. But even this isn't real socialism. I think attempts to justify or explain socialism with examples like this will be ineffective because it isn't even real socialism.

[riverine]

7. I fully agree.

Having given up on defining "socialism" to people I know years ago I just ask them "If Democrats are socialist why do the best capitalists like Buffett and Gates vote for us?"

I never get an attempt at an answer.

[Wounded Bear]

6. Social Security is an insurance program....

[Arkansas Granny]

8. Many people equate socialism to communism.

[mitch96]

18. "equate socialism to communism."

And we have been told communism is bad.. Accept if out prez think the head of a communist country is ok.. Then that communist country is ok, but not the socialist part...
Many of my conservative friends and their parents sing that lament of people getting into their pockets and not working. "why should I give my hard earned money to those people"..
A dog whistle sentence if there ever was one...
Most are now on social security. HA! don't take that away from 'em...
m

[Initech]

9. Oh like the billionaires and giant mega corporations?

They get tons of free money and free stuff from the government and are mooching off of our tax dollars.

[Hortensis]

10. To willfully stupid right wingers. They're afraid of the

unknown, which their beloved old Social Security emphatically is not, and understand only that they must stop us. And in this environment comes Sanders' dictatorial plan...

Smart right wingers are going to be the first to realize Sanders' plan would impose one healthcare system on everyone by government fiat. A unnecessary cancellation of freedom of choice by an autocratic dictate.

They're also going to realize that we wouldn't even have socialized medicine as a tradeoff for this giant loss of freedom, mostly just an expansion of what we have under the ACA and could have by expansion of the ACA.

Since most know what socialism is and is not, those'll know that Social Security is considered a bit "socialized" at most, only in some elements of its administration; it is NOT an example of socialism. The VA, with providers employed by the VA, hospitals and labs owned by the VA, etc., is.

[pamdb]

13. socialism

Yeas. Things like social security, medicare, medicaid, affordable housing for poor people, unemployment benefits...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. None of those things are socialism.

Socialism is an economic system in which the government owns and controls the means of production and distribution - in other words, in which all businesses are nationalized instead of being privately owned by individuals and/or stockholders, and we neither have nor want such a system. Social security and the rest are social safety nets provided by the government, that is, the taxpayers. The real issues have to do with fair taxation and how much tax revenue is allocated to social programs.

[PETRUS]

21. see post #20 nt.

[Edim]

15. Giving free stuff to people who don't deserve it

sounds more like capitalism. Lots of free stuff.

[Edim]

17. Unearned income

Unearned income is a term coined by Henry George to refer to income gained through ownership of land and other monopoly. Today the term often refers to income received by virtue of owning property (known as property income), inheritance, pensions and payments received from public welfare. The three major forms of unearned income based on property ownership are rent, received from the ownership of natural resources; interest, received by virtue of owning financial assets; and profit, received from the ownership of capital equipment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearned_income

[GeorgeGist]

16. To left wingers it means sharing the benefits ...

of owning this country.

[PETRUS]

20. I don't think you have a very thorough grasp of socialism.

It's true that the most common bite-sized definition is social/public ownership of the means of production, but that doesn't really encompass the broad range socialist thought and ideas. Another (possibly better) bite-sized definition is the conscious subordination of the self-regulating market to democratic society (borrowed from Karl Polanyi). Most of the reforms we associate with European social democracy (or the US New Deal) were initially proposed by socialists and socialist parties, and these things (e.g. mildly progressive public pensions, minimum wages, public education, etc.) do represent the subordination of markets to democratic society. The fact that many of today's most ardent advocates for expanding those kinds regulations and public provision call themselves socialists (or democratic socialists) is entirely consistent with history.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. It is important to distinguish between socialism and social programs.

To conflate the two in the context of an American election is not helpful, regardless of the possible philosophical origins of some forms of social programs. I do understand the difference. The electorate, for the most part, does not, which is why it is better to avoid labeling something as "socialist," - which means having to explain in some detail why it isn't really Soviet collectivism. If you have to explain a complex concept, you're on the defensive and you're losing.

[PETRUS]

25. Thanks for the reply.

As a tactical consideration, there are socialists who agree with you. Norman Thomas (an early to mid 20th century U.S. reform-oriented socialist) said "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation." In the short run, he was partly right - quite a bit of socialist policy was implemented under the banner of 'liberalism.' But in the long run he was mostly wrong - the reforms only went so far, and a lot of it has been rolled back since. For my whole life, it's been conventional wisdom that socialism is a non-starter at the ballot box in the U.S., and that's been true. It might still be true, although I think 'socialism' deters far fewer voters now than it has for the last several decades.

Personally, I'd prefer to see the various ways socialism is at play correctly labeled as 'socialist.' Why? Because the policies are largely popular, and maybe if people realize how much they appreciate the ways 'socialism' improves their lives they would be less frightened to take it further. On the other hand, if one's goal is to preserve capitalism, it makes sense to keep people confused about socialism.

[guillaumeb]

26. As opposed to giving free stuff to connected rich people.

Who deserve it, of course.

[philf99]

28. No

Socialism to many right wingers is the government giving something to someone (probably of color) and not me