Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If not "socialism", what should we call "spending tax dollars on things that help everyone" [View all]fishwax
(29,149 posts)90. but it's a dictionary definition
I've been reading the argument on DU that a fairly common usage of the term socialism is inaccurate because it isn't consistent with the dictionary definition. And yet: it is.
The problem with that definition is that almost ANY democracy, no matter how capitalistic,
could be called socialism, if the "means of production, distribution, and exchange" were "regulated by the community as a whole" -- even a country that had no safety net at all.
could be called socialism, if the "means of production, distribution, and exchange" were "regulated by the community as a whole" -- even a country that had no safety net at all.
And why is that a problem? I mean, grammatically it's a problem because you wouldn't call a democracy "socialism" (or "capitalism" ). But aside from the awkward grammar, what is the problem with acknowledging that even countries with a pretty strong capitalist framework, such as the United States, can and have benefited tremendously from socialist intervention in the process of production, distribution, and exchange? I don't have (or see) a need to categorize any country as purely capitalist or purely socialist.
Most Americans support health care for all. But the word "socialism" still carries negative baggage for millions of Americans. Just because young people are "cool" with the word doesn't mean it's the best way to brand policies we want all Americans to support.
I'm not convinced by this line of reasoning. For fifty years (from Truman to Clinton), the democratic party tried to advance the cause of health care for all. For fifty years, conservatives attacked it by referring to it as socialized medicine. For fifty years, democrats responded by running from the label. For fifty years, democratic efforts were thwarted.
In the run up to the 2008 election we again saw the attacks on "socialized medicine," and this continued after Obama was elected and as he worked to make health care reform a reality. But this time, something was different: a pretty sizable portion of the public looked at examples of what had been called socialized medicine and said: that looks pretty good to me. The word no longer had the impact that it once did. Additionally, you had more voices in the fight who were willing to take on the label rather than running from it. I don't think Obama or Biden ever referred to it as socialized medicine, but there were certainly activists and rank-and-file who did. Here on DU it was plenty common to see people advocate for socialized medicine (and also plenty common to see people argue that what would eventually become Obamacare wasn't socialized enough, lol). Finally, you had actual politicians who weren't running from the label. Kucinich, for example, had a noticeable (though never viable in terms of national elections) following, and he didn't fear the label. More significantly, Howard Dean didn't run from the term socialized medicine (though he was careful to clarify differences between single-payer, which he supported, and truly socialist systems such as the VA system, which he also spoke highly of). Running from the label socialized medicine never worked, and eventually health care reform passed in an era in which (a) plenty of prominent voices stopped running from the term and (b) the term itself no longer provided a particularly effective framework against reform.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
94 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If not "socialism", what should we call "spending tax dollars on things that help everyone" [View all]
ProfessorPlum
Aug 2018
OP
Public funding is not socialism. Seriously, that meme needs to stop. It's ignorant.
Garrett78
Aug 2018
#9
The sewer system isn't a "means of production" OR a method of "distribution of goods."
pnwmom
Aug 2018
#42
You still haven't provided a link. The problem is that the standard definition of the word
pnwmom
Aug 2018
#52
But services can be provided by any government -- that doesn't make it a socialist government
pnwmom
Aug 2018
#59
LOL, ignoring the standard, dictionary definition of a word is a GREAT branding strategy.
pnwmom
Aug 2018
#84
The problem with that definition is that almost ANY democracy, no matter how capitalistic,
pnwmom
Aug 2018
#89
The problem with that definition is that it is so all-encompassing that it is meaningless.
pnwmom
Aug 2018
#91
Since our government is owned by the citizens of the country, funded by the citizens
shraby
Aug 2018
#3
You really think "You don't know it... but YOU support socialism" is a winning argument with them?
FBaggins
Aug 2018
#40
Yes we do. But the word SOCIALISM is the last thing that would help us market the concepts.
pnwmom
Aug 2018
#44
I bought the social infrastructure spending is socialism argument for a while.
Blue_true
Aug 2018
#49
Do a little bit more studying social about social democrat v. democratic socialist dear friends.
tirebiter
Aug 2018
#63
That has all been fundamental to the Democratic Party since FDR if not longer
Stinky The Clown
Aug 2018
#65
Money is like manure, if you spread it around it makes things grow!
yortsed snacilbuper
Aug 2018
#73
I'm pretty sure the right wing will be calling compassion a form of socialism soon enough
ck4829
Aug 2018
#75
Calling that stuff socialism is like being an assisted euthanasia advocate but saying you
Lee-Lee
Aug 2018
#81