• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Biden Mulls Abrams as Running Mate

Oct 28, 2017
749
See now this is shifting goalposts... Only 25 percent of respondents ranked “socialist” as a desirable trait for a candidate.

From a few days ago:
U.S. Voters Don’t Want Socialist or Very Old President: Poll
Hey how about one who is BOTH!

(And by the way, for anyone who thinks Bernie is moving the overton window, that dropped to 25% from 27%)

Mention that and you'll be told Bernie is a democratic socialist not a socialist socialist, with the implication being that the former doesn't have to worry about that baggage.

Now we see that Bernie used to support seizing the means of production, even if he doesn't anymore
https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1106251433895186433

So either he's changed, or he's lying about it.

Right now the Republicans are barely attacking Bernie, they want him to win because that's their best shot in the general election (out of the major candidates). But eventually this stuff will be everywhere. He didn't get that treatment in 2016 because he wasn't the nominee, he got to go out while still popular.

But whether he's changer or he's lying, it's not going to be hard to paint him as a socialist socialist in the general election, where 25% makes Trump's 40% look like Bush post-9/11.

So whether it's because he's changed or because he "would mostly function as a social democrat" or because "he'd be too busy dealing with other shit to be nationalizing stuff"... it would never happen. But hey at least the probability Trump gets another 4 years would skyrocket, so odds are he'd never get the chance to even try!
It just isn't a surprise that a democratic socialist would support nationalizing industry and seizing the means of production. That's what makes him a socialist. A democratic socialist and a regular socialist both share those ideas, a democratic socialist just implements those concepts within the framework of a democracy, right?
 
Nov 7, 2017
11,715
Nov 7, 2017
11,715
It just isn't a surprise that a democratic socialist would support nationalizing industry and seizing the means of production. That's what makes him a socialist. A democratic socialist and a regular socialist both share those ideas, a democratic socialist just implements those concepts within the framework of a democracy, right?
No. Democracy and socialism are compatible. Socialism and capitalism are not. Democratic socialism is basically just capitalism with lots of safety nets and regulations. Socialism is a way of running a state's economy.

It's unintuitive much in the way that classical liberalism is modern conservatism in a lot of aspects.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,467
No. Democracy and socialism are compatible. Socialism and capitalism are not. Democratic socialism is basically just capitalism with lots of safety nets and regulations. Socialism is a way of running a state's economy.

It's unintuitive much in the way that classical liberalism is modern conservatism in a lot of aspects.
Political terminology is a dumpster fire like that.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,120
It just isn't a surprise that a democratic socialist would support nationalizing industry and seizing the means of production. That's what makes him a socialist. A democratic socialist and a regular socialist both share those ideas, a democratic socialist just implements those concepts within the framework of a democracy, right?
Democratic socialist can either mean someone who wants to implement socialism through working within the bourgeois electoral system or a social democrat, depending on who is using it. Socialism by itself by definition is already democratic - the term "democratic socialism" is something of a redundancy meant to stand in opposition to Marxism-Leninism.

From a Marxist perspective, Old Bernie was a reformist/revisionist and New Bernie is a social democrat.

Here's a freebie to Bernie haters: Marxist-Leninist thought would consider Bernie to be a "social fascist".
 
Feb 28, 2018
1,355
No. Democracy and socialism are compatible. Socialism and capitalism are not. Democratic socialism is basically just capitalism with lots of safety nets and regulations. Socialism is a way of running a state's economy.

It's unintuitive much in the way that classical liberalism is modern conservatism in a lot of aspects.
No, Democratic Socialism is Socialism but with elected officials and separate branches of Government.

You're talking about Social Democracy, which is, as you described, Capitalism with a very strong social safety net.

Bernie and AOC mislabelled themselves as Democratic Socialists when in fact they are Social Democrats.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,120
No, Democratic Socialism is Socialism but with elected officials and separate branches of Government.

You're talking about Social Democracy, which is, as you described, Capitalism with a very strong social safety net.

Bernie and AOC mislabelled themselves as Democratic Socialists when in fact they are Social Democrats.
I've seen enough things at this point to make me believe AOC really is a democratic socialist hiding in plain sight as a social democrat.
 
Oct 28, 2017
749
No. Democracy and socialism are compatible. Socialism and capitalism are not. Democratic socialism is basically just capitalism with lots of safety nets and regulations. Socialism is a way of running a state's economy.

It's unintuitive much in the way that classical liberalism is modern conservatism in a lot of aspects.
Isn't that just social democracy? Which, in a previous post, is what I said Bernie's ideology as president would be.

I know political terminology, and especially American political terminology can be super fucked. Within an American context, what is the difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist? I'm Canadian, but I've always viewed a social democrat as someone who implements socialist elements within the confines of a capitalist system, while an actual democratic socialist would actually change the capitalist economy into a socialist one.
 
Oct 25, 2017
875
See now this is shifting goalposts... Only 25 percent of respondents ranked “socialist” as a desirable trait for a candidate.

From a few days ago:
U.S. Voters Don’t Want Socialist or Very Old President: Poll
Hey how about one who is BOTH!

(And by the way, for anyone who thinks Bernie is moving the overton window, that dropped to 25% from 27%)

Mention that and you'll be told Bernie is a democratic socialist not a socialist socialist, with the implication being that the former doesn't have to worry about that baggage.

Now we see that Bernie used to support seizing the means of production, even if he doesn't anymore
https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1106251433895186433

So either he's changed, or he's lying about it.

Right now the Republicans are barely attacking Bernie, they want him to win because that's their best shot in the general election (out of the major candidates). But eventually this stuff will be everywhere. He didn't get that treatment in 2016 because he wasn't the nominee, he got to go out while still popular.

But whether he's changer or he's lying, it's not going to be hard to paint him as a socialist socialist in the general election, where 25% makes Trump's 40% look like Bush post-9/11.

So whether it's because he's changed or because he "would mostly function as a social democrat" or because "he'd be too busy dealing with other shit to be nationalizing stuff"... it would never happen. But hey at least the probability Trump gets another 4 years would skyrocket, so odds are he'd never get the chance to even try!
I'm sure if you polled Americans on "White Nationalism" or similar phrases, they wouldn't do too well either. Yet look at the guy sitting in the white house. It's all about how you frame shit. The word "Socialism" has a 25% approval rating, but that doesn't mean that a guy people like selling socialism in a way they like will also have a 25% approval rating.
 
Feb 28, 2018
1,355
Maybe at the end of the day labels really are irrelevant and most people won't care to know the difference between Socialism, Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. It's the individual issues that matter.
 
Oct 29, 2017
4,448
Sydney
I'm sure if you polled Americans on "White Nationalism" or similar phrases, they wouldn't do too well either. Yet look at the guy sitting in the white house. It's all about how you frame shit. The word "Socialism" has a 25% approval rating, but that doesn't mean that a guy people like selling socialism in a way they like will also have a 25% approval rating.
It also dilutes it when everything the Democrats propose has been labelled socialism for the past decade or so.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,024
No. Democracy and socialism are compatible. Socialism and capitalism are not. Democratic socialism is basically just capitalism with lots of safety nets and regulations. Socialism is a way of running a state's economy.

It's unintuitive much in the way that classical liberalism is modern conservatism in a lot of aspects.
Capitalism with safety nets is generally called social democracy nowadays. The term originally referred to Marxist political parties that supported revolutionary politics, but there was a split and social democracy came to mean more reformist socialism (as in, reform as both the means and the aim). Democratic socialism basically holds that capitalism and democracy are incompatible, and is used to distinguish oneself from a Marxist-Leninist. Of course, the Democratic Socialists of America calling themselves that today confuses things a bit, because most members fall into the modern definition of social democrats.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
5,334
Minnesota
It also dilutes it when everything the Democrats propose has been labelled socialism for the past decade or so.
This is why I don't think the republican's strategy of framing Bernie/AOC as the 'socialist boogeyman' is going to be that effective. We only need to look back to their bogus claims about Obama to see a recent example of how desensitized people are to such framing.
 
Feb 28, 2018
1,355
The GOP has been crying wolf about every prominent Dem being a Socialist, and now people with actual socialist leanings are running and the attack has already been diluted to the point where it's meaningless.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,438
You probably would get worst numbers if you ask for a fascist billionaire white pandering racist with a history of mocking and allegedly engaging in sexual assault, and yet you got your president. These numbers are irrelevant and useless without a candidate and a party attached to them. A boring and desperate attempt at dragging Bernard, nothing else.


Which brings us to national socialism in our political terminology is fucked game.
More like Nazbols.
 

xbhaskarx

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,567
NorCal
It also dilutes it when everything the Democrats propose has been labelled socialism for the past decade or so.
This is why I don't think the republican's strategy of framing Bernie/AOC as the 'socialist boogeyman' is going to be that effective. We only need to look back to their bogus claims about Obama to see a recent example of how desensitized people are to such framing.
Is it possible that the "socialist" label would better stick to an actual socialist than to a non-socialist?
 
Nov 14, 2017
1,383
I actually think the opposite - Trump was the only Republican who could've won in 2016 over Hillary (also yes, he would've beat Bernie because low info voters didn't know he was selling them BS and was still attempting to be less extreme on fiscal issues than most Republican's).
Only in the wealthiest nation is what he is selling considered bs even if it exists in many developed countries already.
 
Oct 30, 2017
659
This is why I don't think the republican's strategy of framing Bernie/AOC as the 'socialist boogeyman' is going to be that effective. We only need to look back to their bogus claims about Obama to see a recent example of how desensitized people are to such framing.
I wouldn't take ANY insult the GOP sling your way with any merit. To them, all Democrats are Baby-murdering Gun stealers. As soon as you have that D next to your name that's all they think of you.
 
Oct 29, 2017
4,448
Sydney
Is it possible that the "socialist" label would better stick to an actual socialist than to a non-socialist?
Possibly, but then the ideas Bernie and AOC are floating seem to be polling popularly. If they don't accept the framing and just talk about their ideas and how people will benefit from them a label for the ideology of their ideas can become less of a problem.

It's been pointed out endlessly but some of the most popular US government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are socialist policies. But people don't care because they like them and feel those programs benefit them.
 

Arc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,166
Stop worrying about labels and worry about policy.
Or start being realistic.

Elections are about getting votes, specifically the independents in battleground states. Bernie can't win more than the democrat base, Beto and others can. We have mountains of data supporting this.

The president is a largely symbolic figure, he/she is elected to support the platform of their party.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,467
On the political terminology is fucked scale, the fact that things that aren't inherently socialist but could be just as easily said to fall under the more general term federalist are called socialist is always fun.
 
Nov 2, 2017
6,319
Or start being realistic.

Elections are about getting votes, specifically the independents in battleground states. Bernie can't win more than the democrat base, Beto and others can. We have mountains of data supporting this.

The president is a largely symbolic figure, he/she is elected to support the platform of their party.
Lol.
 
Feb 28, 2018
1,355
Or start being realistic.

Elections are about getting votes, specifically the independents in battleground states. Bernie can't win more than the democrat base, Beto and others can. We have mountains of data supporting this.

The president is a largely symbolic figure, he/she is elected to support the platform of their party.
Yeah that's purely conjecture. And no, you don't have "mountains of data" supporting this.
 

xbhaskarx

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,567
NorCal
[Original Q: "Is it possible that the "socialist" label would better stick to an actual socialist than to a non-socialist?"]

Possibly, but then the ideas Bernie and AOC are floating seem to be polling popularly. If they don't accept the framing and just talk about their ideas and how people will benefit from them a label for the ideology of their ideas can become less of a problem.

It's been pointed out endlessly but some of the most popular US government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are socialist policies. But people don't care because they like them and feel those programs benefit them.
Right but all of those "socialist policies" were passed by non-socialists. So if non-socialists can pass programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security... and now we have Bernie supporters complaining about how other candidates (who are definitely not socialist, in fact the closest would be Elizabeth Warren, who has publicly stated that she is a capitalist) are "co-opting" Bernie's positions (apparently only one person is allowed, who knew "calling dibs" was a thing until Bernie showed up)... why take the risk of nominating an actual socialist, instead of non-socialist who will push popular socialist policies (even if they "didn't support them first" maybe because they're 35 years younger than Bernie)?

I mean, to buy the idea that the concept of national healthcare is inherently socialist you'd also to buy that public schools are socialist.
Right. None of these (very popular programs) are actually socialist. Unlike Bernie in the 1970s wanting to seize the means of production.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
749
Or start being realistic.

Elections are about getting votes, specifically the independents in battleground states. Bernie can't win more than the democrat base, Beto and others can. We have mountains of data supporting this.

The president is a largely symbolic figure, he/she is elected to support the platform of their party.
I don't know if this is true when there is an executive branch of government. Plus, the president doesn't just seem to represent the platform of a party, they seem to define it. Look at Trump, he has turned the Republicans into weird protectionists.
 

xbhaskarx

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,567
NorCal
The president is a largely symbolic figure
Did you just arrive from the 1800s....

That's certainly true in Parliamentary democracies like say India (not too different from the Queen in the UK). In the US the President is the most powerful person in the government. By far, and it's not even close. And some have argued in the world. And the trajectory of Presidential power over the last century is that it's increasing over time, some would say at a scary rate.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
749
[Original Q: "Is it possible that the "socialist" label would better stick to an actual socialist than to a non-socialist?"]



Right but all of those "socialist policies" were passed by non-socialists. So if non-socialists can pass programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security... and now we have Bernie supporters complaining about how other candidates (who are definitely not socialist, in fact the closest would be Elizabeth Warren, who has publicly stated that she is a capitalist) are "co-opting" Bernie's positions (apparently only one person is allowed)... why take the risk of nominating an actual socialist, instead of non-socialist who will push popular socialist policies (even if they "didn't support them first" maybe because they're 35 years younger than Bernie)?
Yeah, sure, which is why Buttigieg seems like the ideal choice. He clearly respects Bernie and his policies, but knows not mess around with labels. He seems like a more pragmatic progressive compared to Bernie. Though quite frankly, America needs to be more socialist and progressive, and I don't know if I trust most of the candidates to make the right decisions on that.

But socialism is also rapidly becoming less taboo in this country. By the time the general election rolls around, I think people will be more comfortable with it.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,823
Look at Trump, he has turned the Republicans into weird protectionists.
There's a feedback loop there. I don't think it's that Trump "turned" Repubs into anything they weren't already but also that Trump is not the sole product of the current Republican zeitgeist. They reflect and amplify each others' worst qualities. Rather than caustion, I feel the emergence of the two is an alignment that's been a long time coming,
 

xbhaskarx

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,567
NorCal
But socialism is also rapidly becoming less taboo in this country. By the time the general election rolls around, I think people will be more comfortable with it.
27% a couple years ago down to 25% now, based on NBC's polling (repeating for you and the Bernie "overton window" folks)... I guess the continued attaching of the label "socialist" to a bunch of not-actually-socialist policies that are highly popular (as you did above) might help though?
 
Oct 28, 2017
749
There's a feedback loop there. I don't think it's that Trump "turned" Repubs into anything they weren't already but also that Trump is not the sole product of the current Republican zeitgeist. They reflect and amplify each others' worst qualities. Rather than caustion, I feel the emergence of the two is an alignment that's been a long time coming,
Fair enough, I think a feedback loop is a good way to describe it. Either way, I think his protectionist policies are probably not what the big money Republicans want.
 

xbhaskarx

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,567
NorCal
Either way, I think his protectionist policies are probably not what the big money Republicans want.
13 minutes ago:
Look at Trump, he has turned the Republicans into weird protectionists.
Evil George Soros globalist elites, definitely don't want Bernie's protectionism though. But hey at least it was that evil moron Trump who made the boneheaded decision to pull the US out of the TPP and not that well-intentioned moron Bernie... kinda like how Jeremy Corbyn being anti-EU is preferable to Nigel Farage, JRM, Boris Johnson, etc.
Do stupid shit... BUT FROM THE LEFT
 
Last edited:

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
5,334
Minnesota
Is it possible that the "socialist" label would better stick to an actual socialist than to a non-socialist?
The only way this happens now is if the candidates openly admit that the republicans are right about their framing of them, which is not going to happen.

What is going to continue to happen is that Bernie, AOC and other politicians promoting some form of socialism are gonna tell Americans that they're taking ideas that are already popular with the people and expand them to other important areas that will benefit society. 'Medicare for All' is a perfect example of this. People are perfectly fine with the existence of Medicare (a socialist service), so framing universal/free healthcare as a Medicare that applies to everyone just makes it more palatable than 'socialist healthcare'. As long as these socialists point Americans to socialist services that Americans are already ok with, I really don't think they'll be negatively impacted when republicans claim that their policies are socialist.