Nonsense. Just like Bernie Sanders, she's deliberately using the wrong term when she says "socialist" or even "democratic socialist" in an attempt to own and reframe the most common insult from...
Nonsense.
Just like Bernie Sanders, she's deliberately using the wrong term when she says "socialist" or even "democratic socialist" in an attempt to own and reframe the most common insult from the right directed at the left.
A democratic socialist wants the public to own welfare systems for all and seize the means of production (which basically implies revolution of some sort). A social democrat wants the public to own welfare systems for all, no revolution necessary.
but if being a democratic socialist means that you believe health care, housing, education and the things we need to thrive should be a basic right not a privilege then count me in.
I have long stood in support of a millionaires tax, Medicare for all, fully funding our public schools, housing for all and rejecting all corporation donations — all of which align with democratic socialist principles.
If you can't even defend being a social democrat politically, but have to misrepresent yourself, clearly the society you're trying to get elected in isn't ready for your socially democratic policies.
Faking a belief in (violently) seizing the means of production can only undercut your political effectiveness. How're you meant to function and compromise after being elected on that platform?
It's just posturing and feeding shitty clickbait journalism.
IANAL, but I suspect that between eminent domain and the Commerce Clause the government of the United States already has all of the legal authority it needs to seize the means of production -- and...
A democratic socialist wants the public to own welfare systems for all and seize the means of production
IANAL, but I suspect that between eminent domain and the Commerce Clause the government of the United States already has all of the legal authority it needs to seize the means of production -- and has had it since 1791.
IANAL, but I believe the prank side of the phrase was always its main intent. At least, that's how I and all my friends that went or thought about going to law school use it.
IANAL, but I believe the prank side of the phrase was always its main intent. At least, that's how I and all my friends that went or thought about going to law school use it.
Last year the DSA national convention voted to end their affiliation with Socialist International because of their "neoliberal views" saying among other things "In many countries, they [SI] have...
Last year the DSA national convention voted to end their affiliation with Socialist International because of their "neoliberal views" saying among other things "In many countries, they [SI] have helped to lead the attack on the welfare state and on the rights of workers and unions.”
When the SPD, Parti socialiste, PRI and PASOK are your actual examples of parties that are too "neoliberal" in your self-described aims towards economic democracy, post-nation state global justice, and social redistribution (i.e. massive confiscation of existing property through legislation/nationalization), to me then you're basically advocating revolution of some sort. The changes require so substantial constitutional changes you can say that revolution happens legislatively if you wish.
I don't think the DSA convention delegates can possibly be so uninformed about what other SI members have done when they've actually been in positions of democratic power to say that the group is "neoliberal" unless their beliefs actually amount to revolution in practice.
DSA leaving SI happens concurrently with the socially democratic parties in the nation states today that seem to emulate the views the DSA formally espouse in their where we stand document most closely have left SI in favor of the Progressive Alliance in the last five years due to SI allowing so many undemocratic parties to join.
There is a vast and vibrant social democratic history in Europe. Relations to those traditions serve as a robust ideological litmus test to move beyond fancy ideological documents for organizations without electoral records leading to voting histories and actual policy implementations.
Wouldn't you agree that the DSA's results from that litmus test speak for themselves? Listen to what I do every day, not what I say in a speech at a party.
Last poll I saw of that race showed her pretty far behind. I wouldn’t be surprised if this story’s intent is to tap into the earned media coverage that helped make Trump so popular.
Last poll I saw of that race showed her pretty far behind. I wouldn’t be surprised if this story’s intent is to tap into the earned media coverage that helped make Trump so popular.
Only if you stretch the definition of revolution until it is essentially meaningless, or means only 'a big change'. For example, if there was a rule that before a company could be sold, the...
(which basically implies revolution of some sort)
Only if you stretch the definition of revolution until it is essentially meaningless, or means only 'a big change'. For example, if there was a rule that before a company could be sold, the workers had to have a chance to buy it, would that really be a revolution?
Yes, but there's no encouragement of worker-ownership in the US. I was just giving one way that some level of transition could occur without a revolution. A rule like what I have suggested would...
Yes, but there's no encouragement of worker-ownership in the US. I was just giving one way that some level of transition could occur without a revolution. A rule like what I have suggested would do a lot to prevent the kind of vulture capitalist practices that just killed Toys R Us.
That's fine, whatever gets the job done and moves things to the left a bit. Don't forget leftists have a bunch of other options. There's no grand revolution, there's no politician that we can...
It's just posturing and feeding shitty clickbait journalism.
That's fine, whatever gets the job done and moves things to the left a bit. Don't forget leftists have a bunch of other options. There's no grand revolution, there's no politician that we can support that will implement the ideas we want; we really do have to build a better future for ourselves by working together. I'm open to donating to lobbyist groups, supporting centrist candidates vs far-right candidates, etc. because they're all just tactics.
Did you read the article or are you just replying to the title? If the GOP can have people openly running as racists why can’t the left have socialists? She’s basically just accepting/adopting the...
Did you read the article or are you just replying to the title? If the GOP can have people openly running as racists why can’t the left have socialists? She’s basically just accepting/adopting the label that others that have recently won office have.
I don’t care to argue politics online and I definitely don’t agree with all that this group wants, but don’t just lazily dismiss them based on a label. Voting against a party is lazier and almost objectively worse than blindly voting for a party. Take a moment and educate yourself on your options, even if it’s just cliff’s notes.
I think we have a serious opportunity for a new "party" to garner a legitimate base in congress. I don't think using one of the most divisive labels in U.S. politics is the best way to accomplish...
I think we have a serious opportunity for a new "party" to garner a legitimate base in congress. I don't think using one of the most divisive labels in U.S. politics is the best way to accomplish that though. I think that's why Bernie shied away from the label himself
This is highly overselling one man’s impact. Socialism as a pejorative has been losing its hold on Anercans for decades. Poll after poll shows this trend, especially among us youths. If anything,...
This is highly overselling one man’s impact.
Socialism as a pejorative has been losing its hold on Anercans for decades. Poll after poll shows this trend, especially among us youths. If anything, Bernie’s popularity was reaction to longer running trends, not the other way around.
That’s not to say it has completely lost that hold, but clearly we’re at the point where you can brag about grabbing people by their pussy and still get elected, so...
I disagree with how you're framing that. Media talking heads and other politicians tried to shut down/dismiss his campaign by referring to him as a socialist. Him adopting the democratic-socialist...
I disagree with how you're framing that. Media talking heads and other politicians tried to shut down/dismiss his campaign by referring to him as a socialist. Him adopting the democratic-socialist label (although he is technically an independent) was a defense against being called a socialist. I don't know of any time he was actively labeling himself in that way, unless responding to someone else.
Yeah I noticed that. Not sure why OP chose to heavily change the title. There's obviously a clear distinction between "socialism", the vague ideology with dozens of separate schools of thought,...
Yeah I noticed that. Not sure why OP chose to heavily change the title. There's obviously a clear distinction between "socialism", the vague ideology with dozens of separate schools of thought, and "democratic-socialism", a platform based on expanding existing social structures and reducing corporate profiteering and influence on said structures.
Lol, I never called you a racist and I never assumed you were a republican. I can’t stand 2 party politics and simply said latching on to clickbait is lazy.
Lol, I never called you a racist and I never assumed you were a republican. I can’t stand 2 party politics and simply said latching on to clickbait is lazy.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia We're not just talking loosely defined racists here, but literal, card-carrying...
The first result when I googled "GOP nazi", because frankly I didn't feel like going too deep down that cesspit ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Look into the candidates mentioned separately if you don't trust their...
The first result when I googled "GOP nazi", because frankly I didn't feel like going too deep down that cesspit ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Look into the candidates mentioned separately if you don't trust their sourcing. The point is that it's not just someone pointing their finger and yelling "That's racist!". It's genuine Holocaust denial and the like. This isn't dogwhistle comments. This is openly stated racism.
Yeah I think some democrats are too liberal with their use of the R-word (racist, not republican). But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the base concern at the root of that impulse either. As...
Yeah I think some democrats are too liberal with their use of the R-word (racist, not republican). But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the base concern at the root of that impulse either. As you said in one of these chains I think, we're in a strange era in American politics where basically any opinion that can be held will be held by a not-insubstantial number of people. It's a law of numbers thing. Add to that the tendency in most social media for the INNOVATIVE (i.e., rare) opinions to rise to the top and you have a perfect storm for the sentiments that run contrary to the main narrative to rise against the main narrative, regardless of what that narrative actually is.
What I'm saying here is basically this: just because it might feel common online for democrats to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being racist, that doesn't mean that all or even a majority will do so. I think people tend to be glib when they talk about politics, as is happening in this very thread. I just hope we all would try (though we may not always succeed) to be a little bit more patient with one another. And maybe I can also live up to that hope.
That said, the guy running in Illinois for a house seat was a card carrying member of the local Nazi movement. You can take issue with the source material, but even a neutral reading of the facts and most of the party establishment's repudiation of him makes it hard to deny that there are people who are openly running as racists. It is an important caveat that much of the GOP party establishment have repudiated this man, but he did win a primary, so how much do their words really matter?
I think this is a very well said opinion and comment. Tildes gold for you (maybe some day) :D I do try my best to look through the, dare I say it... "trigger" words, even though I fall short of...
I think this is a very well said opinion and comment. Tildes gold for you (maybe some day) :D
I do try my best to look through the, dare I say it... "trigger" words, even though I fall short of that from time to time. I generally don't look to Vox.com as a source for any news, the same way I don't look to Beitbart or InfoWars. Although obvious, it is also good to remember that a big aspect of all this "stuff" comes from the use of the internet. We've had what... 2 president before Trump that really saw the use of the internet with? And the internet today is no where near what it was back in the 2000s.
I don't think that's a fair comparison... Infowars and Breitbart both publish intentionally misleading or straight up false content, the former to sell fraudulent medicine, and the latter because...
I generally don't look to Vox.com as a source for any news, the same way I don't look to Beitbart or InfoWars.
I don't think that's a fair comparison... Infowars and Breitbart both publish intentionally misleading or straight up false content, the former to sell fraudulent medicine, and the latter because Steve Bannon is a self-admitted white supremacist. Vox, while it is opinionated (and it should be noted that it's an advocacy site, not a newspaper), usually publishes well researched stories, is always quick to publish a correction or retraction if they messed up something, and their YouTube videos in particular are often well regarded across the spectrum.
You must have missed the second paragraph Her platform isn't Socialism™, she's accepting the label of "democratic-socialist" because opponents will call her positions socialist in an attempt to...
You must have missed the second paragraph
I don’t care to argue politics online and I definitely don’t agree with all that this group wants, but don’t just lazily dismiss them based on a label. Voting against a party is lazier and almost objectively worse than blindly voting for a party. Take a moment and educate yourself on your options, even if it’s just cliff’s notes.
Her platform isn't Socialism™, she's accepting the label of "democratic-socialist" because opponents will call her positions socialist in an attempt to dismiss the entire platform, as you just tried to do. Rather than dismissing the platform based on an arbitrary label, evaluate the content of the platform.
See, I have a problem with you saying "that doesn't matter", about taking the time to look at the content of someone's platform, rather than holding them to an ideological dogma based on the label...
See, I have a problem with you saying "that doesn't matter", about taking the time to look at the content of someone's platform, rather than holding them to an ideological dogma based on the label thrown at them. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but I'll base my vote on what the candidate actually plans to do, not by what assumptions their detractors will make by attributing them to a strict interpretation of a specific version of "socialism". She's not proposing some sort of "socialist revolution" like you're suggesting, she's pushing for the expansion of social programs that already exist. And again, she did not call herself a socialist, that is OP changing the title for clicks.
I'm a little confused about the two top-level comments, but I do agree with this second sentiment. I don't want celebrities leveraging that fame for votes. I don't think being a public figure like...
I'm a little confused about the two top-level comments, but I do agree with this second sentiment. I don't want celebrities leveraging that fame for votes. I don't think being a public figure like a celebrity makes you any more qualified to serve public office than any other occupation (in fact, in many areas I'd say it worsens your case). Still, I'd take enough time to listen to what they're saying than who they are. Arnold actually turned out pretty decently, I think. Sure, there were some hiccups you might point to, but in the grand scheme of governors, he did quite fine. I am not sure that's the normal use case.
@deimos can we get the title changed, it's misleading and clickbait
User-tagging doesn't work yet. If you want to get Deimos' attention, the best way is to send him a direct message.
Nonsense.
Just like Bernie Sanders, she's deliberately using the wrong term when she says "socialist" or even "democratic socialist" in an attempt to own and reframe the most common insult from the right directed at the left.
A democratic socialist wants the public to own welfare systems for all and seize the means of production (which basically implies revolution of some sort). A social democrat wants the public to own welfare systems for all, no revolution necessary.
If you can't even defend being a social democrat politically, but have to misrepresent yourself, clearly the society you're trying to get elected in isn't ready for your socially democratic policies.
Faking a belief in (violently) seizing the means of production can only undercut your political effectiveness. How're you meant to function and compromise after being elected on that platform?
It's just posturing and feeding shitty clickbait journalism.
IANAL, but I suspect that between eminent domain and the Commerce Clause the government of the United States already has all of the legal authority it needs to seize the means of production -- and has had it since 1791.
Off topic, but that's a terrible acronym.
It means "I Am Not A Lawyer". Get your mind out of the gutter. :)
Haha, I know what it means, but I can't help it. I swear that the people who first started using it did so as a prank.
IANAL, but I believe the prank side of the phrase was always its main intent. At least, that's how I and all my friends that went or thought about going to law school use it.
Hi, I'd encourage you to read up on exactly what DSA stands for and how they plan on going about it, as opposed to making assumptions.
Last year the DSA national convention voted to end their affiliation with Socialist International because of their "neoliberal views" saying among other things "In many countries, they [SI] have helped to lead the attack on the welfare state and on the rights of workers and unions.”
When the SPD, Parti socialiste, PRI and PASOK are your actual examples of parties that are too "neoliberal" in your self-described aims towards economic democracy, post-nation state global justice, and social redistribution (i.e. massive confiscation of existing property through legislation/nationalization), to me then you're basically advocating revolution of some sort. The changes require so substantial constitutional changes you can say that revolution happens legislatively if you wish.
I don't think the DSA convention delegates can possibly be so uninformed about what other SI members have done when they've actually been in positions of democratic power to say that the group is "neoliberal" unless their beliefs actually amount to revolution in practice.
DSA leaving SI happens concurrently with the socially democratic parties in the nation states today that seem to emulate the views the DSA formally espouse in their where we stand document most closely have left SI in favor of the Progressive Alliance in the last five years due to SI allowing so many undemocratic parties to join.
There is a vast and vibrant social democratic history in Europe. Relations to those traditions serve as a robust ideological litmus test to move beyond fancy ideological documents for organizations without electoral records leading to voting histories and actual policy implementations.
Wouldn't you agree that the DSA's results from that litmus test speak for themselves? Listen to what I do every day, not what I say in a speech at a party.
Last poll I saw of that race showed her pretty far behind. I wouldn’t be surprised if this story’s intent is to tap into the earned media coverage that helped make Trump so popular.
Only if you stretch the definition of revolution until it is essentially meaningless, or means only 'a big change'. For example, if there was a rule that before a company could be sold, the workers had to have a chance to buy it, would that really be a revolution?
Workers already can buy their company, if management agrees to sell it.
Yes, but there's no encouragement of worker-ownership in the US. I was just giving one way that some level of transition could occur without a revolution. A rule like what I have suggested would do a lot to prevent the kind of vulture capitalist practices that just killed Toys R Us.
That's fine, whatever gets the job done and moves things to the left a bit. Don't forget leftists have a bunch of other options. There's no grand revolution, there's no politician that we can support that will implement the ideas we want; we really do have to build a better future for ourselves by working together. I'm open to donating to lobbyist groups, supporting centrist candidates vs far-right candidates, etc. because they're all just tactics.
Uh... Congratulations?
At least we know who not to vote for now.
Did you read the article or are you just replying to the title? If the GOP can have people openly running as racists why can’t the left have socialists? She’s basically just accepting/adopting the label that others that have recently won office have.
I don’t care to argue politics online and I definitely don’t agree with all that this group wants, but don’t just lazily dismiss them based on a label. Voting against a party is lazier and almost objectively worse than blindly voting for a party. Take a moment and educate yourself on your options, even if it’s just cliff’s notes.
I think we have a serious opportunity for a new "party" to garner a legitimate base in congress. I don't think using one of the most divisive labels in U.S. politics is the best way to accomplish that though. I think that's why Bernie shied away from the label himself
What? Since when? If anything he's the reason why it's becoming popular to self describe as socialist.
This is highly overselling one man’s impact.
Socialism as a pejorative has been losing its hold on Anercans for decades. Poll after poll shows this trend, especially among us youths. If anything, Bernie’s popularity was reaction to longer running trends, not the other way around.
That’s not to say it has completely lost that hold, but clearly we’re at the point where you can brag about grabbing people by their pussy and still get elected, so...
I disagree with how you're framing that. Media talking heads and other politicians tried to shut down/dismiss his campaign by referring to him as a socialist. Him adopting the democratic-socialist label (although he is technically an independent) was a defense against being called a socialist. I don't know of any time he was actively labeling himself in that way, unless responding to someone else.
Yeah I noticed that. Not sure why OP chose to heavily change the title. There's obviously a clear distinction between "socialism", the vague ideology with dozens of separate schools of thought, and "democratic-socialism", a platform based on expanding existing social structures and reducing corporate profiteering and influence on said structures.
because clickbait
Democrats are so quick to throw that label around these days that it honestly doesn't mean shit anymore.
I'm a racists for holding this opinion...
Lol, I never called you a racist and I never assumed you were a republican. I can’t stand 2 party politics and simply said latching on to clickbait is lazy.
To be clear, I wasn't accusing you of accusing me of anything :) (lol at the wording there). We're in a very odd era right now as Americans.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia
We're not just talking loosely defined racists here, but literal, card-carrying Nazis.
And you're gonna link a Vox article to back up your point? Lol
The first result when I googled "GOP nazi", because frankly I didn't feel like going too deep down that cesspit ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Look into the candidates mentioned separately if you don't trust their sourcing. The point is that it's not just someone pointing their finger and yelling "That's racist!". It's genuine Holocaust denial and the like. This isn't dogwhistle comments. This is openly stated racism.
I will do my research, thanks for the name to get started.
No, holocaust deniers don't rank highly in my book at all.
Yeah I think some democrats are too liberal with their use of the R-word (racist, not republican). But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the base concern at the root of that impulse either. As you said in one of these chains I think, we're in a strange era in American politics where basically any opinion that can be held will be held by a not-insubstantial number of people. It's a law of numbers thing. Add to that the tendency in most social media for the INNOVATIVE (i.e., rare) opinions to rise to the top and you have a perfect storm for the sentiments that run contrary to the main narrative to rise against the main narrative, regardless of what that narrative actually is.
What I'm saying here is basically this: just because it might feel common online for democrats to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being racist, that doesn't mean that all or even a majority will do so. I think people tend to be glib when they talk about politics, as is happening in this very thread. I just hope we all would try (though we may not always succeed) to be a little bit more patient with one another. And maybe I can also live up to that hope.
That said, the guy running in Illinois for a house seat was a card carrying member of the local Nazi movement. You can take issue with the source material, but even a neutral reading of the facts and most of the party establishment's repudiation of him makes it hard to deny that there are people who are openly running as racists. It is an important caveat that much of the GOP party establishment have repudiated this man, but he did win a primary, so how much do their words really matter?
I think this is a very well said opinion and comment. Tildes gold for you (maybe some day) :D
I do try my best to look through the, dare I say it... "trigger" words, even though I fall short of that from time to time. I generally don't look to Vox.com as a source for any news, the same way I don't look to Beitbart or InfoWars. Although obvious, it is also good to remember that a big aspect of all this "stuff" comes from the use of the internet. We've had what... 2 president before Trump that really saw the use of the internet with? And the internet today is no where near what it was back in the 2000s.
I don't think that's a fair comparison... Infowars and Breitbart both publish intentionally misleading or straight up false content, the former to sell fraudulent medicine, and the latter because Steve Bannon is a self-admitted white supremacist. Vox, while it is opinionated (and it should be noted that it's an advocacy site, not a newspaper), usually publishes well researched stories, is always quick to publish a correction or retraction if they messed up something, and their YouTube videos in particular are often well regarded across the spectrum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
You must have missed the second paragraph
Her platform isn't Socialism™, she's accepting the label of "democratic-socialist" because opponents will call her positions socialist in an attempt to dismiss the entire platform, as you just tried to do. Rather than dismissing the platform based on an arbitrary label, evaluate the content of the platform.
See, I have a problem with you saying "that doesn't matter", about taking the time to look at the content of someone's platform, rather than holding them to an ideological dogma based on the label thrown at them. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but I'll base my vote on what the candidate actually plans to do, not by what assumptions their detractors will make by attributing them to a strict interpretation of a specific version of "socialism". She's not proposing some sort of "socialist revolution" like you're suggesting, she's pushing for the expansion of social programs that already exist. And again, she did not call herself a socialist, that is OP changing the title for clicks.
She's running against Cuomo so I'd vote for her every day of the week and twice on Sundays if they would let me.
I think our country has had enough TV stars running for office.
It's an auto "NO" from me regardless of political affiliation.
I'm a little confused about the two top-level comments, but I do agree with this second sentiment. I don't want celebrities leveraging that fame for votes. I don't think being a public figure like a celebrity makes you any more qualified to serve public office than any other occupation (in fact, in many areas I'd say it worsens your case). Still, I'd take enough time to listen to what they're saying than who they are. Arnold actually turned out pretty decently, I think. Sure, there were some hiccups you might point to, but in the grand scheme of governors, he did quite fine. I am not sure that's the normal use case.