RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...t-sentiment-breaks-by-party-line-in-iowa-poll
43% of Iowa Democratic caucus voters identify as socialists.
That is actually very interesting
-
Features
Who is feeling the Bern
- Thread starter dismal
- Start date
That is actually very interesting
untermensche
Contributor
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
Yes we do, which is exactly why - I think - there is such a large divide between how Baby Boomers vs Millennials view the word "socialist"
untermensche
Contributor
What is needed is for socialists to regain control of the word again. The core of socialism is democracy.
Socialism was greatly damaged by the Soviet Union.
It was a totalitarian highly repressive society that called itself "socialism" as if by merely having the label it would make a very repressive society appealing.
And of course the US agreed entirely. In an attempt to create a negative impression of "socialism".
The label game.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,957
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...t-sentiment-breaks-by-party-line-in-iowa-poll
43% of Iowa Democratic caucus voters identify as socialists.
That is actually very interesting
Be interesting to know the average ages of those polled.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Yes. It's interesting that some on the left use the same definition that the right uses. The right calls all people who favor a larger safety net a socialist in order to mock them and pay less taxes. But when the left uses the word incorrectly, it helps the right. Socialism has such a negative connation (deservedly so) that calling anyone a socialist undermines the individuals efforts to increase social spending for the poor.
Anyway, to address your point: the problem with socialism is that in order to achieve socialism, a group must be willing to allow a "totalitarian highly repressive" group to take over and eliminate the capitalists (and/or take their stuff. Then, according to history, the totalitarian group gets used to its power, and then doesn't give it up once the capitalists are contained.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
I blame Rush Limbaugh! Seriously, the right has won the war in that it is now perceived that the only way to help the poor is to "steal" from the rich. The left has been incredibly ineffectual by not making the argument that increasing the safety net actually benefits all.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Note that these are people who are self identifying as socialists. Now the question is, why? How did this happen? Could it be in fact the far rights labelling of Obama and progressive ideas as socialist over the years?
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Here is another little oddity
So America dislikes "liberals" but accepts "progressives".
For some time, I myself have been more favorable to calling myself a progressive rather than liberal, basically because I see liberal as having social connotations while progressive has more of a policy connotation. Because the far right has gone out of its way over decades now to smear "liberal" as somehow wrongheaded and effete.
So America dislikes "liberals" but accepts "progressives".
For some time, I myself have been more favorable to calling myself a progressive rather than liberal, basically because I see liberal as having social connotations while progressive has more of a policy connotation. Because the far right has gone out of its way over decades now to smear "liberal" as somehow wrongheaded and effete.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
If I had to guess, you are a little younger than I. But this has been going on since Mondale and Clinton.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Yes. But now we have new generation Xers and Millenials who have grown up with the foamy lipped far right radio/TV haters to a degree not known in earlier times. And it is these younger cohorts who are most comfortable with socialists, whatever that word means to them. Many of them seem to understand this for what it is, well poisoning rhetoric from extremist right wingers and nothing more.
Bernie very much presents as a one issue candidate, or a few issues one. He's all about taking money out of politics and true universal health care, etc. O'Malley should jump on that, simply say he agrees completely with Bernie, and will implement all he is talking about, but a President needs to be more than just that, and then talk up foreign affairs and other stuff, playing up his record as a governor, and offer Bernie a spot as his VP right on the spot on the debate stage. It may look weird given how far behind in the polls O'Malley is, but it would give Bernie what he claims to want, and could deflate his campaign I think. Hillary has already polarized herself too much to do this, as the one supporting the Obama status quo etc, but O'Malley hasn't.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
You tube, Sanders, socialism
Sanders seems to have explained his version of Democratic socialism quite a few times in various interviews. Perhaps this is part of why some younger Sanders enthusiasts aren't worried about the term socialist.
Sanders seems to have explained his version of Democratic socialism quite a few times in various interviews. Perhaps this is part of why some younger Sanders enthusiasts aren't worried about the term socialist.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
What should people who advocate for the means of production, distribution, and exchange to be owned by the community or collective be called?
TV and credit cards
Contributor
Anyone but an old white guy.
I think if they learned about his positions, they might be inclined to change their minds. If they compared the old white guy to the old white woman, they might change them real fast.
I think many people who would vote for Bernie would vote for Hillary for safety's sake. Now that these would be Bernie voters are seeing what the GOP may be offering up, they might not be so skittish about going for the Bern. The polling of white folk supports this.
Bernie's problem remains, if elected, he would likely be on an island looking for a friend, anywhere he could find one. So, unless we see a super-majority of social democrats elected, how oh how can these very humanistic positions of his ever be written into law? I love you Bernie, but given the opportunity, how do you get over this legislative hump? Both sides of the isle will do to you what the right has done to Obama.
I think if they learned about his positions, they might be inclined to change their minds. If they compared the old white guy to the old white woman, they might change them real fast.
I think many people who would vote for Bernie would vote for Hillary for safety's sake. Now that these would be Bernie voters are seeing what the GOP may be offering up, they might not be so skittish about going for the Bern. The polling of white folk supports this.
Bernie's problem remains, if elected, he would likely be on an island looking for a friend, anywhere he could find one. So, unless we see a super-majority of social democrats elected, how oh how can these very humanistic positions of his ever be written into law? I love you Bernie, but given the opportunity, how do you get over this legislative hump? Both sides of the isle will do to you what the right has done to Obama.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
Communists (see the bolded word).
Socialism is democratic control (not ownership) of the means of production.
A socialist sees a fracking proposal in upstate New York and wants to put it to a vote whether or not to allow the energy company to try it. A communist sees that proposal and has the government-owned energy company perform the actual fracking under the supervision of the local party chairman.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
It's worth considering that Sanders' election could create some breathing room for actual social democrats to get electoral traction of their own. A Sanders victory would essentially make America the kind of country where being labeled a "socialist" isn't something to be afraid of and politicians can be free to adopt socialist-sounding positions (e.g. Single payer healthcare) and not have to run to the right just to prove they're not leftists.
untermensche
Contributor
Again, the problem with not being able to think beyond labels.
Community ownership would take many many forms. It would all depend on the community.
To try to shove all the different kinds of structures that could possibly arise with community ownership into one label is to try to end thinking.
lpetrich
Contributor
I wish to point out that certain forms of collective ownership are commonly considered capitalist. Business partnerships and stock ownership. Partners in a business partnership collectively own their business. Owners of stock in some business collectively own that business. So if you want to get rid of collectivism, you'll have to get rid of business partnerships and stock.
Yeah, but it's involuntary collectives that non-socialists tend to object to, not collectives.