"Socialism" is not toxic or poisonous, but I can tell you what is...

[ck4829]

It's the wing of the political spectrum that says valuing human lives over confederate statues, that getting vaccinated, that buying supplies before a potential disaster, and, oh right, not wanting to get shot in school are all examples of "socialism" today.

It's weird how this isn't obvious to everyone.

[msongs]

2. sorry but that was not socialism. that was totalitarian nt

[riverine]

3. Bullshit, Soviets were socialist.

Socialists must clamp down on free market renegades so that the state rules.

Bernie Sanders said he supports bread lines so that the rich don't get to eat better food.

And he himself has an affinity for the Soviet system.

[guillaumeb]

7. Unsupported assertions.

But you are free to make them.

[riverine]

10. Bernie Sanders loves bread lines

[guillaumeb]

11. What year is it?

Second question:

What year was this said?

[riverine]

13. Who the fuck cares what year? It is in living color suitable for a GOP ad 24/7.

Just quit the old poison bag now!

Don't defend him.

[guillaumeb]

17. My point was made, albeit indirectly.

Sanders, as others here have said, is more FDR social Democrat.

The GOP loves to frame anything that interferes with the pursuit of profit by the 1% as socialism.

Do not fall for that GOP framing because it is how they control the terms of the debate, and how they indoctrinate people.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. It's what people associate with the word "socialism," correctly or not.

The word is politically toxic. Trying to explain socialism (which doesn't actually exist in either the US or in the more enlightened countries of northern Europe) is a fool's errand because of its decades-long association with the old Soviet Union, which is pretty well embedded in the minds of many voters. When people think about socialism they don't think about universal health care or government-subsidized higher education; they think of collective farms and gulags.

[defacto7]

14. Actually that's the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

and I am old enough to know it well. I also know that you are way off the mark on the definition of socialism, so is Sanders to a point, so were the Soviets. The North Koreans call themselves DPRK for Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Do you think we should demonize the word democratic because they define it incorrectly? Personally I'm tired of people incorrectly claiming perfectly good words with real definitions out of ignorance and bad habit. It screws up communication and understanding of what's real and what's not.

[defacto7]

18. I'm no Sanders fan, but I try to make my choices based on facts

not habits. As I see it, Sanders fails for several reasons but not because of a misunderstood word.

[Fresh_Start]

5. Fighting to save the word Socialism

which means different things to different people..in order to bolster one candidate who DOESN'T need to use the word socialism except for his own vanity... is a waste of time.

Hopefully it is only a foolish waste of time but perhaps it is a dangerous waste of time because it gives succor to the enemies of the Democratic Party

Lets fight for something worthwhile...like America or democracy or equality or decency and leave socialism with its many different executions on the garbage dump of history.

[riverine]

8. Why make if harder to defeat Trump?

You are spot on.

Some certain candidate needs to GFO of the Democratic Party.

[guillaumeb]

6. Recommended.

Some here obviously see the term socialism as having one single form.

Is the VA an example of toxic socialism?

How about the USPS?

How about the armed forces?

How about public utilities?

How about Social Security?

And on and on.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. None of those things are socialism.

They are government benefits, which are not socialism. Socialism is an economic system in which there is little or no private ownership of business (production and distribution), and we do not have that, nor do the countries of northern Europe that are often held up as examples of what we should have. We could choose to use our taxes to help subsidize things like health care, higher education, child care, etc., but that's not socialism. For example, Medicare, as it exists now, is not even socialized medicine; if we went to a Medicare for all system it still wouldn't be socialized medicine unless the government directly employed the doctors and ran the hospitals, and that's not going to happen. The armed forces acquire their equipment from private vendors. Public utilities are regulated monopolies but few are government-owned. The Post Office is a government corporation, not a government agency, that is required to be self-supporting through the payment of postage. Social Security is an insurance program managed by the government that pays private doctors and hospitals. There's very little true socialism in any modern democracy.

[guillaumeb]

16. They are agencies that are owned by the Government at diffeent levels.

And they are examples of how Government can run programs more efficiently than private profiteers.

And all of the Agencies are businesses, but they are designed as not for profit businesses.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. Yes, but it isn't socialism.

The mere existence of a government agency isn't socialism. In order for governments to do what they are supposed to do, they have to delegate certain functions to people with the expertise needed to do it. Our government doesn't own its agencies; their existence is authorized by Congress. It's basically the same everywhere. France isn't a socialist country and it has government agencies that do many of the same things that ours do. Same with Germany, Spain, Japan, any country you can think of, not just the "socialist" countries of northern Europe that aren't really socialist countries. All of them have agencies and bureaucracies whose functions are to regulate and/or to assist citizens in various ways. It's true that government agencies are normally (but not always) more efficient than private businesses who do the same things; that's because the government doesn't exist to make a profit. That isn't always true, though; just look at the insane costs of some equipment procured by the military. Government contracts can be a real gold mine for some private vendors. The agencies are not businesses. With the exception of a few government-chartered corporations like the post office and Amtrak, they are not structured as businesses, even as nonprofits. Nonprofits take in money; they just don't make profits. Government agencies do not make money at all. They have budgets determined by Congress and that's all they get. They can't go out and raise more. Equating the existence of government agencies with "socialism" is wayyy off the mark.

[wasupaloopa]

9. Socialism is a red meat word for the right.

It can be used to hurt us more than it can help us.

[brooklynite]

19. Telling voters that they're stupid is never a good strategy...

Socialism is toxic because voters think it is. And none of your examples have been suggested as "socialist".