Democratic Socialism Derangement Syndrome?

[guillaumeb]

Democratic Socialism Derangement Syndrome? Why Hysteria about the Rise of the Progressive Left Misses the Mark


From the article:

This hysteria reveals a fundamental misunderstanding among media pundits and political elites about why the DSA is experiencing such explosive growth. Whether suggesting democratic socialism is just for white men, that its policies are too radical for most Americans, that it will bankrupt the country, that it’s a dangerous foreign concept, or that it will spell disaster for the Democratic Party, these critics consistently seem to miss the mark. In reality, such claims often betray the fact that the rise of socialism materially endangers their current positions of both wealth and power.
Having lived through the worst financial crisis in a generation and a pitiless job market while facing mounting student debt and the looming threat of climate havoc, millennials — on the cusp of becoming the country’s largest bloc of eligible voters — have grown disillusioned with capitalism and, according to a 2016 YouGov survey, now view socialism more favorably.

To read more:

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/08/16/democratic-socialism-derangement-syndrome-why-hysteria-about-rise-progressive-left?cd-


Many seem to feel that capitalism is the only or best possible system. All of the terrible things that result from capitalism, especially the predatory version practiced in the US, are dismissed by saying that every other system is worse. So this logic is used to explain why the US cannot afford national healthcare, or tuition assistance, or living wage jobs, or retirement security.

[LBM20]

1. They should be saying PROGRESSIVE CAPITALISM and not "Socialism."

The problem is that progressives generally STINK at good messaging.

First, they shouldn't even be saying "socialism" at all. They should be saying Progressive Capitalism.

That means fair taxation, fair trade deals, and strong INVESTMENTS in infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc.

Saying "socialism" just invites attacks. When will they every learn????

[guillaumeb]

2. Is there a progressive capitalism?

There may be some few progressive capitalists, but they are very much the exception. Capitalism is a system designed to make the few very wealthy. It is not a political philosophy.

And unrestrained and/or predatory capitalism will always make the few rich at the expense of nearly everyone else.

[LBM20]

17. We are a free market capitalist society, period. Not gonna change. Progressive Capitalism means a

free market society with some rules (environmental laws, worker rights, etc.), investments in education, healthcare, a living wage, etc.

What do you advocate? The government making furniture, running movie theaters and restaurants, and making cars? Never gonna happen. The free market is about innovation and creativity. It just needs the right rules and investments. Denmark and other Scandanavian countries are not "socialist." They are progressive capitalist societies based on for-profit private business just like us.

[demigoddess]

42. simply using federal money (taxes ) in a better way.

Universal medicare would be nice. Keep more people alive to pay taxes.
Equalizing school experience. More kids who grow up to be educated and hold good jobs.
Country wide Vocational schools to train people for jobs. More dropouts etc in good jobs.

all they would have to do is reform the areas they now control, not stick their noses into individual businesses. Just set up equality for citizens who then go on to practice capitalism with brains. Also, cutting down on the tax breaks for rich people. In the 50s, rich people paid huge portion of their incomes in taxes and they had more reasonable wealth than now.

[guillaumeb]

54. I stand by my previous statement.

Capitalism and capitalists are concerned with concentrating wealth and using that wealth to influence politicians.

And the free market is a myth, a label with no truth in it. All markets operate under rules.

[icaria]

66. We are whatever we want to be, period.

The Nordic countries are social democracies. Yes they have market based economies, but they also have robust welfare states. You seem to agree that rules and investments in education, healthcare etc. are good things. That's what the welfare state is about.

So the Nordic countries are not "socialist" but their markets are not completely "free", and that's a good thing.

I see democratic socialism as a movement that could help the US move toward the conditions of a social democracy. It's nothing to be afraid of. It is exactly what the Democratic party needs.

[JHan]

69. Please look up the Nordic Model , they are social welfare states yes...

but they are very much into free-market capitalism, that is the bedrock of their economies.

So what you have is "free"-market capitalism which exists alongside a large welfare state. The Economist magazine once described Scandinavian countries as "stout free traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies".

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/02/02/the-next-supermodel

[Hortensis]

73. Issues and solutions aren't the problem, Icaria.

Most Democrats support socialized solutions to some problems where they'll work. I always have. Some support ambitious solutions that go well beyond anything claimed by Senator Sanders.

The first problem is that some who before called themselves capital-P Progressives and are now calling themselves social democrats are really just insurgent oppositionists. The right has theirs also. They're far smaller in numbers than they imagine and burn up their resources opposing whoever has power. They not only never get to the point of creating solutions themselves but usually only manage to be drags on the progress they truly believe they want. In 2016, with great assistance from the right and Putin, our current self-proclaimed capital-P Progressive/social democrat GE voters helped severely derail progressivism.

This is their eternal pattern. Our founding fathers had the same problem with them, but they were mostly just ignored. Leaders of this type had greater support after the Great Depression, and FDR tried to work with them to create the New Deal, but they fought him, he won, they lost, and it happened without them.

The second problem is that this dysfunctional behavior is of great use to liberalism's big opponents. Ocasio would only be of interest to some genuinely interested in her without the huge right wing and Russian machines pumping her up into a national figure. And they're not doing it to advance anything she claims to stand for but to use it against that.

[NurseJackie]

89. Wow, that sounds SO familiar. Where have I heard that before? Let me think...

It's nothing to be afraid of. It is exactly what the Democratic party needs.

Wow, that sounds SO familiar. Where have I heard that before? Let me think...

4

[George II]

91. You're showing a lot of wisdom there or, as they say on the Greek island of Icaria, σοφία

[Eliot Rosewater]

92. Now that you mention it, and no, it is not your imagination.

[heaven05]

113. I agree

very familiar....

[ehrnst]

96. Well, it's a relief to no longer be on ignore.

[heaven05]

112. won't work

period.

[dansolo]

20. What would you call Elizabeth Warren?

I dare you to claim that she isn't progressive, and she believes that capitalism should be regulated, not eliminated.

[guillaumeb]

57. I did not say eliminated, I said regulated.

Warren is an excellent example of a progressive politician. In my view she would be a great candidate in 2020.

[dansolo]

74. You denounced capitalism and posted a link to an article highlighting socialists

I didn't see any mention of regulating it. Also, Democratic Socialism is not the same as Social Democracy, and you are definitely promoting the former.

[guillaumeb]

102. I described US predatory capitalism.

That is not a denunciation of capitalism.

[Adrahil]

31. That's why we have to have a regulated capitalism.

Market economies, driven by capital investment, is very, very good at some things, and very, very bad at others. Likewise socialism is excellent at some things and poor at others. Seekingnto blend the two should, IMHO, be the goal.

[SkyDancer]

45. Except they are NOT capitalists

[OilemFirchen]

49. Who isn't? (n/t)

[ehrnst]

97. The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism or Nordic social democracy)

refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Sweden).

Each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.[11] According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model "social democracy" refers to a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of capitalism rather than a replacement for capitalism.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

[gyroscope]

72. Doesn't matter

you can call yourself a progressive capitalist or whatever else you want, but the right will still say you are a far left socialist commie. they would mock the term 'progressive capitalism' as a creative new euphemism for socialism.

[brush]

88. The words socialism and capitalism both have negative connotations, depending on one's perspective.

Perhaps a less negatively charge word can help. Maybe our economics can learn some thing from cooperatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

[heaven05]

3. the ideology

of Eugene Debs will not work in our system of governance. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid all programs that help millions. Now if the socialist democrats would help our Party keep the RW from destroying these programs then they might start living up to their faction's name

[guillaumeb]

5. The programs that you named are all features of a social democracy.

But the terms socialism and liberalism and progressivism have been framed by the right and the rich as un-American.

[heaven05]

15. Let me be more specific

the derangement syndrome against socialist-democrats lies at the door of socialist-democrats trying to tear down the Democratic Party and of a democratic-socialist faction of the Democratic Party by making a name for their 'rising star' by attacking other tried and true, dyed in the wool Democrats of our Party and not their Repthuglikkan challengers. Thank god voters have seen through that strategy of that minor faction and their leader(s). I am a Democrat.

[Voltaire2]

47. You seem very upset.

The article seems quite relevant.

[heaven05]

85. no

[guillaumeb]

53. The Democratic Party is not a monolith.

There have always been different groups under the label of Democrat.

[heaven05]

86. with one minor faction

blowing the most smoke. Your comment seems to ignore that. I am just telling what many know but are afraid to comment on.

[SidDithers]

23. Social Democracy is different from Democratic Socialism...

Why are you conflating the two?

Sid

[Voltaire2]

48. It's like a gunner argument.

When in need of a response go for the definition debate.

[kcr]

4. See, I think a lot of this "hysteria" is manufactured largely in part

by the very same politicians complaining about it. Meanwhile one of the "establishment" Dems just proposed an excellent bill that directly targets capitalism and hits it where it hurts and would effect meaningful change, and we hardly hear anything about it. Actual policy? What a snooze.

[guillaumeb]

6. And the Congressional Black Caucus proposes excellent alternative budgets

that are also ignored by the corporate media. All a part of controlling the dialogue.

[kcr]

24. Our media is a big part of the problem, for sure.

I'm still not impressed with a large part of the group that have taken up the mantle of the leadership of the left in American politics. I don't think the media is the only explanation.

[Uncle Joe]

7. That was a good read

Thanks for the thread guillaumeb.

[guillaumeb]

11. You are welcome.

Guillaume

[David__77]

8. The right will cry socialism regardless.

I think reasonable people can conclude that a mix of socialism and capitalism is just fine. I certainly see no need to be defensive about the word “socialism.”

[guillaumeb]

12. Determining the proper mix is key.

When capitalism, and capitalists, are regulated, the predators can be controlled.

[David__77]

38. Honestly I think the terms socialism and capitalism may be fairly useless.

They seem to me more buzzwords than universally understood social systems. What I think is clear enough is that the socialist movements have played a positive role in stimulating good reforms. I’m glad that socialists make their home in the Democratic Party.

[guillaumeb]

55. I agree with both of your excellent points. eom

[librechik]

9. this too is making me tear my hair out.

IIRC Nixon began the push to de-educate kids about history and civics.So expensive and unnecessary (to rich donors,)

Reagan made it a feature, not a bug. Everybody (Republican tax hawks) got onboard defunding education!


Conservatives do not want an educated electorate --With that in place they will die out, lies as their only clear beliefs.

[guillaumeb]

13. An excellent response.

History must be written to present the view favored by the rich.

[OilemFirchen]

19. You're gonna lament the lack of history and civics education in THIS thread?

[CrispyQ]

10. We continue to let them get away with calling our system capitalism, but it's not.

Socialized risk & privatized profits isn't true capitalism. That isn't the free markets at work.

[guillaumeb]

14. An excellent observation.

The US system privatizes the profits and socializes the rest. Thus the Walton family can underpay its workers who then qualify for State and Federal aid.

[LBM20]

18. And we are also not "socialist." We are really capitalist free market system with some rules and

investments, but not enough.

[OilemFirchen]

16. Not gonna click on commondreams, so this may not be pertinent.

AFAIK, only one candidate for the 2018 elections is an actual Democratic Socialist. The others, who for some head-scratching reason have chosen to self-identify as such, simply aren't.

Why don't some of the Republicans call themselves Republican Racists? It's more fitting, as they actually are, and campaign and govern in that manner. We're going to call them racists anyway, so what difference could it possibly make?

[David__77]

37. This far, I think two congressional Democratic primary winners are DSA members.

I don’t know if any others who might or who might favorably view socialism. Ron Dellums was a DSA member- it’s not like this is new.

[SidDithers]

21. commondreams. LOL...nt

Sid

[guillaumeb]

56. Laughable is rejecting without reading.

Agreed?

[JHan]

71. I read it too and laughed.

Common Dreams is fox news of the left.

I know you like it, you often share from it, and you are engaging, but this article is off base in its attacks.

They trip over themselves to falsely equivocate Democrats with Republicans.

They demonize left centre Democrats.

.. There are many Democrats who want an expansion of the social safety net, that doesn't make these Democrats socialists. So the premise of the piece is ridiculous - because AFAIK you have to hunt for a Democrat ideologically opposed to an expansion of the Social safety net. If a Democrat balks at the word socialist, it doesn't mean they don't want Universal Health Care. The author of this piece applied litmus tests, where anyone who doesn't see the world as they do, is an enemy of progress.

In conclusion the article is a hot mess.

And yeah, America invests too much in military spending .. tell us something new Common Dreams.

[heaven05]

22. Eugene Debs ideology? No

some people out here are able to see through the smoke and are not fooled by the "look, look, over here, this Democrat must be attacked by us Democrats in the name of democratic-socialism".

The distraction of this "derangement" ploy in trying to protect a minor faction and it's self-perceived importance to the continuance of a viable Party called the Democratic Party is obvious and unacceptable.

[Squinch]

25. Every time someone puts up clickbait nonsense about how divided Democrats are, some numbskull

falls for it and spreads it around.

I believe the term for that is " useful idiot."

[NCTraveler]

90. That covers it. nt

[saidsimplesimon]

26. guillaumbeb, thank you

A very interesting discussion is developing. I will follow the comments as I know you can defend yourself.

[guillaumeb]

58. Thank you,

and thank you again. I think that this discussion is needed, and the Democrats will be stronger as they present a program that calls for more regulation of capitalism and one that calls for Medicare for all and other progressive programs that benefit the bottom 90%.

[empedocles]

27. Still, wherever an individual is on the Democratic or moderate spectrum, or the whole political

spectrum for that matter; fair or not, and political realities are very often not fair. This 'Socialist' issue will not go away, get dissed or dismissed, fade away, slammed, etc.

'Socialist' will be continue to be an issue 'of interest' and will continue to be 'addressed.' Here, there and everywhere].

[stonecutter357]

28. lol Debs !

[Loki Liesmith]

29. It's a fad

It’ll pass like everything else. No need to get worked up over it.

[Shumi]

30. Did Common Dreams endorse Hillary over Trump?

Asking for a friend.

[guillaumeb]

59. Welcome to DU.

What did you think of the article?

[Shumi]

87. I'll take that as a "no"

Did you prefer Hillary over Trump?

[Progressive dog]

32. Socialism has been tried in full

in the USSR, China, and many other places like Venezuela. Of course there is hysteria about destroying the economy. You can't redistribute what you don't have.

[David__77]

36. Yes, you can only distribute what's produced.

And, too often, self-described socialists fail to properly emphasize how to develop the forces of production. I believe some communists in China said something like “better socialist weeds than capitalist flowers.” I don’t agree with the underlying notion. I say go with what achieves common prosperity in practice.

[ck4829]

52. According to Republicans, Obama was also a socialist though

And if you survive a school shooting, that also apparently makes you a socialist according to them as well.

[Progressive dog]

118. That is true

[mountain grammy]

33. K & R and thank you.

It's a shame so many Americans have bought into "government is the problem" bullshit. Government is meant to be a force for good and we must continue to work to make it so for our grandchildren's sake.

[guillaumeb]

60. Amen.

Government and taxes are not bad things. It is the Libertarian billionaires who try to make them bad things.

[NCTraveler]

34. "Revolutionaries" desperate need to overestimate their importance.

On full display.

Pelosi is further to the left than many of them.

Today’s democratic socialist are yesterday’s capitalistic progressives, they just make it more about self. Coalitions scare the shit out of them.

[Hortensis]

82. +1000. They're sincere oppositionists to the rest of the party

who fail to understand how mainstream the ideas their leaders are pushing really are. That would be okay if only supporting those leaders didn't require them to imagine the rest of us as a corrupting, anti-progressive force that needs to be overcome.

[ismnotwasm]

35. First, as has been stated, Democratic Socialism's messaging sucks

I just spent a bit of time of google, where many people would find their information and it’s... not good. Not bad, exactly but not great let’s say.

Most countries we like to point out as Democratic Socialist also have a strong free market economy. Capitalist even. So, while it’s great to admire these countries, they are not utopias.

I think we can all agree that a system of available healthcare and public collage is desirable (I don’t say “free” because it’s not “free” everything needs to be paid for, in a DS world, this will be by taxes. We’ve evolved past the barter system as an economic force. I am a person who is willing to pay higher taxes for healthcare and schools, just as I am for good roads and firefighters)

The US also has a court system that is rather unique and any DS programs will have to make it through the inevitable challenges, some of which they will lose.

So rather than assume people haven’t thought it out, I think it’s better to use facts—risks and benefits of such a system, as well as realistic plans on how to get there. No sugar coating. No Robin Hood crap. Just “This is what it will cost you, and this is how it will benefit you”

[empedocles]

40. 'Socialist', however poor it is for Dem election messaging,

works very well to get desperate 'air time' for those pushing the dem 'wedge' newsy issue - media across the spectrum.

[ismnotwasm]

41. Very true

It’s a mess really.

[guillaumeb]

61. The GOP is excellent at framing and messaging.

And the US corporate media follows that messaging.


When a substantial portion of the electorate feels that government is the enemy, and that taxes are a form of confiscation, that portion of the electorate might be unreachable.

[ismnotwasm]

79. They ARE unreachable

They are bigots. They may love their children and their animals and beautiful sunsets, but they don’t love human kind. Or you, or me.

My particular problem with the messaging is the whole ‘tax the rich, feed the poor” memes, which are not realistic and not how Democratic Socialism works. It’s far more complex.

Taxes are the elephant in the living room. In order to make DS work, the tax structure has to be revised, overhauled in fact, and it has to be done in a way that doesn’t destroy the existing economy. And yes the “working class” would pay more in taxes just as every other economic class as well. Perhaps not directly, but we would pay.

[guillaumeb]

103. We would pay more in taxes.

but less for healthcare expenses. And the rich would have to pay far more, perhaps on the scale of what they paid during the FDR times.

[yallerdawg]

39. What I don't apprecate...

is having this stuff shoved down all of our throats as if these dreams and aspirations aren't shared by almost all of us.

The difference is, of course, the difference between "wishful thinking" and "pragmatism."

I don't think this country is showing any signs of being ready to make fundamental changes and sacrifices for each other - when half the voters demonstrate that they don't give a shit about anyone or anything.

I consider this a 'pragmatic' viewpoint, but I support and wish for the most liberal progressive policies anyone can think of! Since the first vote I ever cast!

How are we doing? You know - in the real world?

[meadowlander]

43. Is it so hard to acknowledge that there are two legitimate arguments

and then discuss those arguments like adults without accusing people we simply disagree with as having a "derangement syndrome" or being "hysterical"?

That's not a very promising position to start from if you want to have an actual constructive dialogue.

And I'm saying this as a member of the progressive left who supports a Democratic Socialist movement.

[ucrdem]

44. When do they ever talk about socialism?

Maybe Sanders does in Vermont, but I don't remember him mentioning it in California. And when Hillary brought it up in a debate he didn't have a lot to say about it then either.

And let's be realistic, neither he nor AOC, who has won but a single summer primary, ran on "socialism."

[guillaumeb]

63. The US is a 2 party system by design.

The 2 major parties have no interest in anything else, and now the GOP is in favor of a 1 party system.

[ucrdem]

67. And Bernie makes 3

He's an (I).

p.s. I don't think socialism is the problem here. There are several, but they are basically: a) primarying Democrats in safe seats and important races, and b) the policies. They're lousy. Particularly respecting the ACA but also on trade and guns.

[heaven05]

117. ++++

I agree

[dlk]

46. Every Single Country in the World is Some Mixture of Capitalism and Socialism.

The only difference is the percentages. There are no pure capitalist or pure socialist countries anywhere. Time to stop making socialism the bogeyman.

[ck4829]

50. K&R

[vlyons]

51. I grew up in the 50s. I'm a boomer.

I was taught starting elementary school all the way through high school (class of '65) that Communism was evil. Socialism was communism-lite and the primrose path to dreaded communism. That "liberals" were pinko secret socialism. That capitalism was next to godliness and the only political system that guaranteed wealth and happiness for all. Capitalism capitalism capitalism was drummed into us for years and years. Not much has changed since then either.

Not once in high school or college were there any classes on the history of socialism, the different types of socialism, or the history of the labor movement.

[guillaumeb]

62. History is written by the winners.

The 1% decides what is history.

[icaria]

65. Good description of boomers' indoctrination

And X-Gen were worse, growing up under Reagan, etc.

I'm a boomer from a family where FDR was held up as a major diety. I got the same "education" about socialism as you did, but by the time I was at university I had a little bit figured out, and later got married to someone from Finland and lived there for awhile and found out what it really takes to keep a "New Deal" or social democracy going. It takes having a real social democratic party. It takes a few real leftists in the congress, parliament or what have you - to balance out the hard right. it takes a much better electoral system than we have - with proportional representation so minor parties (e.g. leftists, greens, etc) can participate. And it takes a good number of people who are willing to make small sacrifices for a better society.

We need big changes in the political system. The Democratic party of the 1990's "third way" DLC, etc. who still hold too many of the party's leadership positions will not achieve these changes. We can't achieve it by pretending not to have an ideology. We can't achieve it by accepting axioms such as: "we have a two party system" or "we are a capitalist country".

A movement is needed to invigorate the Democratic party and to offer all working people a reason to vote. Call it democratic socialism or social democracy or a mix/mash of the two. Call it Socialism.

Right now, Bernie Sanders, Kshama Sawant, Alexandra Octasio Cortez and their supporters are this movement. The movement can achieve political changes much as the civil rights or gay rights movements are now doing. If we change society the political system will follow. Democrats should embrace this movement and should recognize the need to change our political system.

[ck4829]

75. +1

[lapucelle]

94. That's an fascinating personal history.

Thank you for your frankness. It's interesting to hear from a boomer in his / her 70's who has lived in Europe.

Having lived abroad must have been wonderful, but truth be told, whether home is NY, the heartland between the coasts, or California, there's no place like it.

While diverse points of view find a home in the Democratic big tent, a wise recommendation (for any "movement" so doctrinaire that it seeks to shatter what others have built) is that it organize and found its own political party based on the policy platform of its ideology, rather than try to remake a robust existing party in its own image.

Oh, and welcome to the Democratic Underground.

[George II]

95. Did anyone ever stop to think that the Democratic Party is the way it is because....

....most members of the Democratic Party want it to be that way?

Why is it that a small minority of Democrats (or some that aren't even Democrats) are demanding that we all change to satisfy them?

[ehrnst]

98. What do you mean when you say "Third Way?"

While you are a newbie here, and a Boomer, you don't seem to be familiar enough with Democrats to know that the DLC no longer exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

And are you promoting voting Green Party?

I'm surprised it took you so long to find DU.

Welcome!

[heaven05]

114. why does this

have such a familiar ring, phrasing, contextual framing concepts...I don't agree.

The social democratic-Independent FACTION of our big tent Democratic Party has a place here, yet it is just a faction with few original ideas so far. This has such a familiar English language structure and construction and familiar from sometime recent in posts here at DU especially in mounting such a vigorous defence of a minor FACTION that uses the same political approach in our big tent Democratic Party.

I have been around as long as you and have found, in my uninterrupted loyalty to my Democratic Party and vote, that I could only vote for our Democratic candidates in our general election, ALWAYS.

Social-democrat Independents and their faction have NEVER gained enough traction in our big tent Democratic Party, because ideas co-opted from the general collective and the usually wise knowledge and wisdom of the Democratic Party gained from hard-fought primaries and general elections, over my 50 years and for which our Party has always fought for, were not original concepts, policies, proposed programs to help the 99%, EVER. Finland sounds like an excellent place to live for a social Democrat-Independent who might be unsatisfied with the overall Democratic Party's political aim(s). I guess.

Your Finnish socialist democrat programs are familiar and constantly proposed here, along with a little undercover Eugene Debs ideology, by the socialist-democratic Independent faction in our big tent Democratic Party. Won't work. Simple 1st reason-Finland population 5 million+, population USA 325,000,000-MILLION. Costs would be astronomical and where would the TRILLIONS of dollars needed just to get this off the ground come from? More taxes on those who are struggling just to pay rent, mortgage, food, predatory usury by credit card companies, short-term loan scams? Where?????

ACA was a good starting point to slowly reach a complete health care system, designed to be UNIVERSALLY ATTAINABLE for ALL Americans.

Yet with the current RW administration slowly, obviously destroying ACA, maybe we should concentrate on the vote in November to try and repair the damage to our Democratic Party and Presidents attempts at gaining universal health care being proposed by your faction, as represented by ACA. And familiar because the Democrats have been, since JFK, trying for the victory represented as the starting point, ACA., We did it. A starting point. To use a phrase familiar...every journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. We made that step as the Democratic Party faithful and with a real POTUS at the helm with ACA. Let's continue that journey in November, shall we? Or for some, not?

[haele]

64. Are they Socialists first or Democrats first?

That's my question. In the US, one group strives to make policy, the other strives to govern - and that's two different actions.

I'm a Democrat who approves of a socialist safety net for those who need it and socialist policies for common interests to benefit everyone in general. The "all people are equal under the law" type.

However, I'm not a Socialist. I find Socialism historically has been much more autocratic bureaucratic and limited than a Democracy that regulates Capitalism.

Haele

[meadowlander]

70. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Socialism is an economic philosophy and democracy is a political one.

[poetshepherd]

68. Capitalism makes $$

All these social programs require $. So let the rich do what they do: make $, so we can fund programs.

Just eliminating preferential rates for capital over labor, would provide all the $ we need. We can reform capitalism simply by forcing those in the top 1% to actually pay taxes!

In 2016 the Clintons earned $11 million, paid 44% tax. In 2011 Mitt Rmoney earned $11 million, paid $14% tax. THAT is the whole problem.

[guillaumeb]

104. Welcome to DU.

I agree with your analysis. The rich essentially pay nothing, and the bottom 90% pay more to make up for the rich.

[CentralMass]

76. The Nordic model has also be referred to as "Social Capitalism"

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59f2c98ce4b06ae9067ab7bc
How Well is American Capitalism Working?

"Social Capitalism
The Nordic community – Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland – practice a form of capitalism known as Social Capitalism. This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level. The four characteristics of Nordic Capitalism are:

· A commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade. Most of the production and distribution system is in private hands.

· The government supports individual autonomy and social mobility. It support its citizens in developing a healthy lifestyle free of hard drugs and alcohol and positive on exercise and nutritious eating. The government greatly supports preserving the environment and clean air and water. "

[CanSocDem]

77. Kicking...

[NurseJackie]

78. Aw.

[guillaumeb]

105. How insightful. eom

[NurseJackie]

111. ...

Thank you. The same goes for your post.

[George II]

80. Millennials have NOT "grown disillusioned with capitalism"...

...a small group of Millennials (prompted by a pre-baby boomer) think they're disillusioned with capitalism.

The results of that 2-year old YouGov survey are being misrepresented by the author.

[ck4829]

83. OK

[bettyellen]

109. Isn't YouGov the survey that always pointed you toward one candidate you were most aligned with

because it was stacked to conveniently leave out the policy positions of all the other candidates? I remember taking that survey with a bunch of different answers, yet it kept telling me I love the same candidate. I did not!

[George II]

110. YouGov polls can tend to "direct" a respondent to the response they want to hear. Mostly....

....by keeping out what they don't want you to say, so you invariably agree with their pre-determined premise.

Their polls can be very skewed.

Simply stated, they can ask something like "of these four, who do you like the most":

A
B
C
D

If you like E, you're out of luck. Then it turns out that B gets the most votes. They announce that "B is the most popular in the country", not letting on that there are 22 letters that weren't included in that "popularity contest", of which E may have been the most popular.

[HughBeaumont]

81. Capitalism is great at CREATING wealth. It's absolutely shit-horrible in DISTRIBUTING that wealth.

Here's where heavy regulations and solid (and far encompassing) social safety nets come in. You know, something the USA is striving to NOT achieve. Instead, we have re-branded Feudalism.

You want Universal Health Care, Universal Education and a Basic Minimum Income, start by having a Minimum AND Maximum Wage. The idea that anyone needs a billion dollars or more defies reason and morals when so many in this country are either poor or going to great lengths to pretend they aren't poor.

I'm not getting why supposed Democrats seem to be against the idea of more equitable distribution.

[CentralMass]

84. Wealth might have something to do with it.

[guillaumeb]

106. Well said, and I agree. eom

[CanSocDem]

116. No Kidding!

"I'm not getting why supposed Democrats seem to be against the idea of more equitable distribution."

Especially here.


.

[Eliot Rosewater]

93. THis is so simple it is embarrassing.

Impossible for ANY movement in this arena in the next 3 years, agreed?

You agree that EVEN IF we take back the house and senate, that unless we have SUPER MAJORITIES and the WH, NONE of this can happen, as in single payer, right?

Now, would I like something I have advocated for my entire life? Of course, but I also cant have TESLA model 2018 x p100d yet either so I wont spend too much time thinking about it.

What I will think about is there is a Nazi, Fascist, Traitor criminal in the WH and controlling the GOP and our entire country. They are going to kill a bunch of us eventually if we dont do something and they WILL destroy the environment and kill EVERYBODY as well if something isnt done.


If our goals are the same, why are you going about it in such a backwards way?

[melman]

100. 'something I have advocated for my entire life'

And yet never here. Like, at all...ever. Seems strange.

[Eliot Rosewater]

101. Always, every single time I talk about it.

Difference between discussing that issue vs who is running for what office and has the best chance of winning.

Unlike some I simply want ANY democrat in EVERY seat. No matter what it takes.

The issues will take care of themselves once we have super majorities and the WH but they will NOT be successful, most of them, until then. Too many stupid Americans who vote against their own survival time after time, aka republicans.

Recently I have had to try and FOCUS people away from single payer, something that CANT be done in the next 3 yrs, which I notice nobody is arguing with me about, and try to get people to focus on the NAZIS AND TRAITORS burning down the house NOW!

This is not a debate, there is NO argument that it cant be done in the next 3 yrs, and there is NO argument that there are NAZIS and TRAITORS burning the house down as we speak.

Try as some might, they cant change those facts.

[guillaumeb]

107. Medicare for all enjoys strong support.

Lacking is the political will to stand up to the big business contributors in the healthcare industry.

[ehrnst]

99. And I think that there are certain obstacles to implementing the kind of government

that has taken decades, if not centuries, for even a racially and religiously homogenous country to implement.

The US is diverse, and it's going to be a much tougher sell here.

[guillaumeb]

108. Framing is essential.

As is the political will.

[ehrnst]

115. Framing is very difficult to keep control of - as we saw in the last election

with Russian trolls spreading misinformation even invading DU.

And how do you overcome the fact that we have a very diverse population, who doesn't see each other as "our own" and will oppose paying for a safety net or any further societal benefits for "them" with "political will?" What do you propose will change "political will" when gerrymandering by the GOP and voter suppression make it much harder to elect a Democrat? That will take decades to fix, if even possible.

As I said - the countries in Europe with those safety nets are very homogenous religiously and racially. Denmark is, as we speak resisting including immigrant "outsiders" from benefitting from "their" social system - requiring immigrant children to be taught about Christianity as a national Danish "identity" -
https://www.newsweek.com/denmark-forcing-immigrant-children-learn-about-christmas-easter-and-democracy-949245

And even those nations have differing levels of socialism and varying strategies to get there - and contrary to a popular trope, when there is income equity and health care for all, social justice issues such as racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and misogyny are not "made right."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Europe

[guillaumeb]

119. Excellent observations,

but at one time, slavery was also seen as inevitable.