Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
55 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Maybe we should drop the ist and the ism and just call some, Social Democrats ? (Original Post) pwb Mar 2019 OP
What's wrong with Progressive? greymattermom Mar 2019 #1
Nothing. Its just socialist is being used against us. pwb Mar 2019 #2
Because progressive, social democrat, and socialist Hortensis Mar 2019 #46
I've tossed out "Eisenhower Socialist" a time or two, when I was making a point... JHB Mar 2019 #3
Yep. pwb Mar 2019 #5
But Social Democracy and "Democratic Socialism" are not two names for they same thing. CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #4
I have no problem with just plain Skidmore Mar 2019 #6
This. LuvLoogie Mar 2019 #8
Works for me mcar Mar 2019 #9
I love my Democratic Party! Cha Mar 2019 #10
I agree, I've been a Democrat for more than 45 years, I see no need to add adjectives or modifiers. George II Mar 2019 #11
+++++++++++++++++++++ still_one Mar 2019 #15
I'm a Democrat and a democrat and proud of the two terms. But the RW media will take any term erronis Mar 2019 #29
+1000. n/t pnwmom Mar 2019 #36
As as adjective, "social" is already derogatory, as in "SJW" (Social Justice Warrior)... VOX Mar 2019 #7
or just drop social/socialist from the term democrats? nt msongs Mar 2019 #12
Of course, like the social democracies of western Europe. brush Mar 2019 #13
I like your idea lunatica Mar 2019 #14
In socialist countries the state owns the means of production... brush Mar 2019 #16
I think that as soon as we add the name Democratic lunatica Mar 2019 #18
That's all well and good but repugs are openly framing the word socialist... brush Mar 2019 #21
I don't give a f**k what the opposition thinks or does. lunatica Mar 2019 #22
Calling ourselves socialists is how to re-elect trump. brush Mar 2019 #23
You obviously didn't read what I said lunatica Mar 2019 #25
Democracy, sure. But certainly not what most view as socialism. brush Mar 2019 #34
That's what I call myself lunatica Mar 2019 #41
Repubs call everyone to the left of fucking Mussolini a Socialist. It doesnt matter if it's true or liberalnarb Mar 2019 #37
True, that's their goal to frame the party as socialistic. brush Mar 2019 #40
It's nice you think that. But it really doesn't. GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #24
Socialism is defined by social ownership not state ownership. liberalnarb Mar 2019 #38
And how do workers take control of their labor without government doing it for them? GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #42
Wow, theres a lot to unpack here. liberalnarb Mar 2019 #52
I'm fine with being called a Democrat Progressive dog Mar 2019 #17
I'm fine being called a socialist. Joe941 Mar 2019 #19
As an actual Socialist, I wont be dropping the 'ist'. If politicians feel the need to identify liberalnarb Mar 2019 #20
How many actual voters do you think are socialist... brush Mar 2019 #26
You're right. Nobody is fed up with this system or has any problems with the way things are.nt liberalnarb Mar 2019 #33
Thank you. An honest and actual socialist describing your beliefs. GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #27
I think people who like socialism have never given wasupaloopa Mar 2019 #28
I don't disagree with much of what you wrote. But you miss the biggest problem. GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #32
I cannot agree that economics is political. The minipulation of the economy by polititions is real. wasupaloopa Mar 2019 #47
Holy shit, did I log on to free republic by accident? eom liberalnarb Mar 2019 #35
No. But you did not log onto Socialist Underground either GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #43
At times I think some folks at FR can make more sense than some people here. wasupaloopa Mar 2019 #48
At least their consistantly crazy. eom liberalnarb Mar 2019 #49
I just call them Democrats Mr Tibbs Mar 2019 #30
It doesn't matter what we call liberals Poiuyt Mar 2019 #31
Democrat Snackshack Mar 2019 #39
"Social Democrats" is already taken Recursion Mar 2019 #44
That's my understanding tirebiter Mar 2019 #45
There are lots of parties with the name (country name here) Social Democratic Party. liberalnarb Mar 2019 #50
pwb, I remain a Progressive Democrat saidsimplesimon Mar 2019 #51
Progressive Democrat is good. No ist or ism in progressive. pwb Mar 2019 #53
I agree, Peace if possible, saidsimplesimon Mar 2019 #54
Just call them democrats and drop all the other labels Meowmee Mar 2019 #55

pwb

(11,205 posts)
2. Nothing. Its just socialist is being used against us.
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 06:22 PM
Mar 2019

I consider Liberal a label given to us by Fox and limbaugh . Democrats and Progressive and Social Democrats. Good.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
46. Because progressive, social democrat, and socialist
Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:42 AM
Mar 2019

all have VERY different and individual meanings? Whichever applies to each of us, we should be proud of and strive to be good examples of for others.

And we shouldn't inadvertently smear real whatevers by trying to steal and misapply their identity.

I am a proud strong liberal and also a proud Democrat standing for the democratic principles our nation was founded on. That I'm progressive is intrinsic to liberalism in this era, need not be stated. And like virtually all liberal Democrats, I support a mixed economy. Big of course.

JHB

(37,132 posts)
3. I've tossed out "Eisenhower Socialist" a time or two, when I was making a point...
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 06:27 PM
Mar 2019

...and could bait someone into a retort of "Eisenhower wasn't a socialist!", setting up "Neither am I, but my views are closer to his than yours are! Why are you calling everything you don't like 'socialism'?"



 

CrossingTheRubicon

(731 posts)
4. But Social Democracy and "Democratic Socialism" are not two names for they same thing.
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 06:30 PM
Mar 2019

These are two very different ideologies despite the current re-framing efforts to conflate them.

Social Democracy is a liberal ideology. Democratic Socialism is a form of socialism.



Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
6. I have no problem with just plain
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 06:32 PM
Mar 2019

ole Democratic Party. We all believe in democracy. Don't we? As for economics, we live in a mixed economy. I don't think that will change.

George II

(67,782 posts)
11. I agree, I've been a Democrat for more than 45 years, I see no need to add adjectives or modifiers.
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 07:21 PM
Mar 2019

erronis

(14,955 posts)
29. I'm a Democrat and a democrat and proud of the two terms. But the RW media will take any term
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 10:38 PM
Mar 2019

and make it pejorative if they can, and if we let them.

There are whole think-tanks with well-funded elite brooks-brother boys and girls that sit around trying to denigrate others. Used to be you needed focus groups; now you can just spin something out into the twit/blogosphere and see what sticks and what bounces.

* I do realize I just participated in the mud-slinging....

VOX

(22,976 posts)
7. As as adjective, "social" is already derogatory, as in "SJW" (Social Justice Warrior)...
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 07:05 PM
Mar 2019

Social justice warrior is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics. ~Wikipedia

It stinks that we on the left have so little control of language in politics: the pejorative “Democrat Party” has been around for decades (Joseph McCarthy was an early user), but is now a permanent Republican “gang-sign.” “Liberal” is sadly a stand-alone epithet, completely devalued. “Entitlements,” long used to negatively describe the promised programs of Social Security and Medicare, is now in common usage be both parties.

Put much of the blame on Newt Gingrich, who politically weaponized words and language back in 1990. From Wikipedia:

Drawing rhetorical inspiration from Newt Gingrich, GOPAC wrote and distributed a memo to Republican Party legislative candidates in 1990. The memo, called "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control", contained a list of "contrasting words" and "optimistic positive governing words" that Gingrich recommended for use in describing Democrats and Republicans, respectively. For example, words to use against opponents include decay, failure (fail), collapse(ing), deeper, crisis, urgent(cy), destructive, destroy, sick, pathetic, lie, liberal, they/them, unionized bureaucracy, "compassion" is not enough, betray, consequences, limit(s), shallow, traitors, sensationalists; words to use in defining a candidate's own campaign and vision included share, change, opportunity, legacy, challenge, control, truth, moral, courage, reform, prosperity, crusade, movement, children, family, debate, compete, active(ly), we/us/our, candid(ly), humane, pristine, provide.

The cover page of the memo said: "The words in that paper are tested language from a recent series of focus groups where we actually tested ideas and language."

The comic strip Doonesbury mentions the memo in a strip, calling it the "Magna Carta of attack politics."

brush

(53,474 posts)
13. Of course, like the social democracies of western Europe.
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 07:31 PM
Mar 2019

Some don't seem to understand the difference and the pejorative associated with socialism by many here in this country.

It's a huge negative and the two prominent pols associated wi th our party should know better.

If they were calling thenselves Social Democrats, as in the social democracies in western Europe witch are thriving capitalist societys that are highly regulated and taxed to provide generous social programs to their citizens would be one thing. But to associate them selves with socialist countries where the state owns the mens of production and doles out goods and services to its people—hell no.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
14. I like your idea
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 07:34 PM
Mar 2019

I would have to think about it. My first reaction when I just read your OP is enthusiasm, but very quickly, because I have great love for words, it conjured up an image of someone loving to party and meet new people for fun activities.

I consider myself a Progressive and sometimes I’ll say I’m a Democratic Socialist which reflects more accurately what my political beliefs are. I feel quite comfortable with both descriptions.

Then, of course, comes my real resistance to have others try to peg me as something I’m not because they want to insult or dominate the message. I don’t mean you. I mean the Republican infantile tendency to ridicule and mislabel what we are.

Perhaps it’s just plain stubbornness on my part but the more they demean us the more entrenched I become.

brush

(53,474 posts)
16. In socialist countries the state owns the means of production...
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 07:51 PM
Mar 2019

and doles out goods and services to its people—from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her needs.

Try social democrat as in western European countries which are thriving capitalist societies that are highly regulated and taxes to provide generous social programs like universal healthcare and free college to its citizens.

We don't need to buy into repugs pegging us with negative connotations like socialism/communism, and the two prominent pols associated with our party who call themselves democratic sociaiiists should know better. Words, just as elections, have consequences.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
18. I think that as soon as we add the name Democratic
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 08:22 PM
Mar 2019

to Socialist it changes the fundamental meaning of the term Socialist when it stands all by itself. That’s why I use it.

In a Democracy the basic principle is that the people elect their government representatives and therefore the people are the government. Just like it is here. Adding Socialist principles means government (duly elected remember) in turn takes care of the basic needs of all the people. It also leaves people free to make as much money as they like and become millionaires as long as they pay proportional taxes. Capitalism is fine, as long as it never takes anyone’s basic needs and rights away.

Poverty could be eliminated and everyone would have a truely equal opportunity to choose their life. It may sound like pie in the sky, but I’m an optimist.

Perhaps there can be some other way to label the political concept of a safety net for everyone. I’ve tried to do it by combining two words to make a third concept.

brush

(53,474 posts)
21. That's all well and good but repugs are openly framing the word socialist...
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 08:48 PM
Mar 2019

Democrats and many are faling for it.

We don't need to play along.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
22. I don't give a f**k what the opposition thinks or does.
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 09:14 PM
Mar 2019

They don’t get to define us just to belittle us. We need to ignore them and define ourselves.

brush

(53,474 posts)
23. Calling ourselves socialists is how to re-elect trump.
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 10:09 PM
Mar 2019

All the negative oppo they didn't have to use against Sanders in 2016 they will adapt it to the whole party and use it for 2020.

We need to be smarter than that. We are Democrats, not effin democratic socialists.

Calling ourselves socialists who favor the means of production belonging to the state is the stupidest think we can dol

Most Americans think communism when socialism is mentioned.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
25. You obviously didn't read what I said
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 10:26 PM
Mar 2019

I didn’t mention anything about any State nor did I come anywhere close to saying the State owns everything.

When he people elect representatives that is Democracy!

Jesus!

brush

(53,474 posts)
34. Democracy, sure. But certainly not what most view as socialism.
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 11:01 PM
Mar 2019

Calling ourselves socialist is a good way to put trump right back in the WH.

 

liberalnarb

(4,532 posts)
37. Repubs call everyone to the left of fucking Mussolini a Socialist. It doesnt matter if it's true or
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 11:06 PM
Mar 2019

not. Every Democratic candidate will be accused by the right of be a Socialist/Communist/Marxist whatever. It doesnt matter if its Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, we are all Socialists in their eyes.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
24. It's nice you think that. But it really doesn't.
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 10:22 PM
Mar 2019

Socialist is the noun. It identifies the subject of the sentence. In this case socialism or socialist.

And socialist has a defined meaning. Someone who believes the state should control the means of production.

Democratic is the adjective and just describes the noun. So in the case of Democratic Socialism it means a socialist society arrived at by Democratic means. And since most Americans and democrats are opposed to socialism it is not accurate for most of us. And your brief description of you beliefs makes it clear you are not a socialist. Social Democracy does not just mean that governments take care of people although that is an element of it. It also insured those with capital are made to take of the people who help earn their capital.

I don’t believe in alternative facts nor meanings for words.

A person or party running as Socialist is guaranteed to lose a national election.





 

liberalnarb

(4,532 posts)
38. Socialism is defined by social ownership not state ownership.
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 11:13 PM
Mar 2019

This means workers being in control of their labor as opposed to being bossed by an employer. Socialism as state control comes out of the cold war and Soviet Union.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
42. And how do workers take control of their labor without government doing it for them?
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 11:31 PM
Mar 2019

You made my point for me. Socialist do not believe in the private ownership of capital. To get more technical. And only the state can take away private property. And once they have it, who do they give it to? A workers council? And who picks them.

And who starts new business without capital?

Every time it has been tried it turns into a bloody cluster fuck. Every time. And everyone ends up starving. Many of us have watched the 20 year Venezuela nightmare as more and more business were given to the ‘workers’. That is where it always ends. And if Venezuela is not ‘real’ socialism, please give me another example that worked out better.

It has never worked, and will never work. The Europeans know it and they have way more experience with its and know it is a dead end philosophy.

It’s like arguing everyone should own a unicorn.

 

liberalnarb

(4,532 posts)
52. Wow, theres a lot to unpack here.
Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:55 PM
Mar 2019

Your first assertion is that Socialists do not believe in private ownership of capital. This is true of many Socialists but not necessarily the case for all Socialists and Socialist thinkers. Most Socialists are big proponents of worker cooperatives which can an have been formed without state intervention. Many Socialists do advocate state involvement in their envisioned transition to a collective system to some degree. You asked who picks "them". I assume you mean who chooses the body of workers to take control of that business's function. There is no one agreed upon mechanism for doing this among Socialists. Socialism is not a stagnant ideology. Socialists adjust and modify their mechanisms for achieving Socialism based on the present set of circumstances. Someone on this thread argued that Socialism can never be achieved without violence. To back up this assertion the poster cited the fact that Karl Marx predicted a violent uprising to over throw the ruling class. This is likely referring to The Communist Manifesto which Marx declared to be outdated within his own lifetime. Socialism isn't a fundamentalist religion, it changes and molds like all ideologies to properly address current conditions. There aren't many Socialists advocating the appliance of the prescriptions in The Communist Manifesto to the present system (though some Communists might). Marxism is a philosophical tool that Marxist Socialists use to analyze material conditions. As for how Socialism would be achieved today, I would point to the blueprint unveiled by the Labour Party in The United Kingdom. John McDonnell is the Labour Party's "Shadow Chancellor of The Exchequer", which is basically the equivalent of a top economic advisor. He rolled out a proposition for how to go about establishing a real cooperative sector in the UK. Instead of a government takeover of businesses, McDonnell has proposed a law that contains a provision in which any company within the UK that closes down, sells its business, or decides to move out of the country must give it's own workers the "right of first refusal". Meaning that the workers have the opportunity to buy the company from its current owners and convert it into a democratically run cooperative. If the workers decide that they do want to buy the company and form a cooperative, then the British government will lend the money to the workers needed to buy and develop that model. This would result in the development of a robust cooperative sector in the British economy without any forceful government takeovers of the means of production. It would make the democratization of the economy a consumer option. The British public would then be able to choose which model they prefer by taking their business to either the cooperative sector or to the conventional capitalist, up-down, employer/employee sector. You asked who starts a business without capital. This provides a model for creating worker owned businesses without having to abolish capital and still achieving many Socialist goals.

Your second assertion concerns the current situation in Venezuela, which has a hell of a Fox News ring to it. The Venezuelan project, called the Bolivarian Revolution, was widely successful under the leadership of Hugo Chavez. Chavez's government pulled millions of Venezuelans out of dire poverty. Chavez was a complicated but extremely admirable figure. When he took power he declared that the profits from Venezuela's rich oil reserves were to be used for the benefit of the Venezuelan people and not for the profits of a bureaucracy. A small group of monopolists had long been selling Venezuela's oil at low cost to the United States and taking the profits for themselves. Chavez raised the prices and sold the oil directly to purchasing countries, eliminating the middleman speculators. He used the oil profits to fund programs to combat illiteracy and provide an elementary through college education to the population. He also directed portions of the profits to subsidizing poor families, specifically single mothers, to raise their families. There were also robust housing programs, increased retirement benefits and doctors were provided to all communities. These programs split poverty in half and reduced extreme poverty by two-thirds. Venezuela was also now selling oil at cheap prices to developing Latin American and Carribean countries. This was a major thorn in the side of the United States (remember Iraq) which culminated in a 2002 US backed coup attempt against Chavez. The coup was quickly deterred by Venezuelans who were deeply supportive of Hugo Chavez's project. After Chavez died many of these programs faltered and failed due to a combination of ruthless economic warfare being waged by the United States on Venezuela and the mismanagement and incompetence of Nicolas Maduro.

"It has never worked, and will never work. The Europeans know it and they have way more experience with its(sic) and know it is a dead end philosophy." If it never worked and "Europeans know it" then they have an odd way of showing it, since most Europeans identify as Socialists in one form or another. Most major political parties representing the left in Europe are some form of Socialist. The French Socialist Party, The British Labour Party, Liberi e Ugali in Italy and Sinn Féin in Ireland are examples. "It's like arguing everyone should own a unicorn." I'm not even going to attempt to rebut that absurdity.

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
17. I'm fine with being called a Democrat
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 08:21 PM
Mar 2019

and` people who are really socialists or communists should be truthful about what they stand for.

 

liberalnarb

(4,532 posts)
20. As an actual Socialist, I wont be dropping the 'ist'. If politicians feel the need to identify
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 08:35 PM
Mar 2019

instead as Social Democrats, fine. However, there is a real difference between Social Dems and Dem Socialists. Being a Democratic Socialist usually means that persons agenda involves a serious, widespread empowerment of workers in their workplaces. Democratization of the economy is usually the end goal of a Democratic Socialist project. Social Democrats, however, focus on building a much stronger welfare state with free higher education, strong social programs for people with lower incomes, housing for the homeless etc. Dem Socialists fervently support those things, too, but they are usually the main features in a Social Democracy.

brush

(53,474 posts)
26. How many actual voters do you think are socialist...
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 10:28 PM
Mar 2019

and/oe will vote for a party that is framed as socialists.

One percent of voters at most. The goal is to defeat effin trump not the Democratic nominee.

Calling ourselves socialist may be idealistic to you but it's the dumbest think that can hapen to the Democratic Party in trying to defeat trump in 2020.

The vast majority of American voters are capitists, right or left leaning, and that is not changing by the 2020 election.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
27. Thank you. An honest and actual socialist describing your beliefs.
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 10:29 PM
Mar 2019

I dont hate your or think less of you. I think you are wrong and will not vote for candidates that support your beliefs. But I am glad you are on DU.

If the majority of democrats support your position then by all means, they should call themselves socialist. But from what I have read here your opinion is not shared by many who defend socialism. They support social democracy but never bring up the real meaning of socialism. Or try to change the meaning to describe social democracy.

Excellent post. Best I have read in a while.

Have a nice evening.

 

wasupaloopa

(4,516 posts)
28. I think people who like socialism have never given
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 10:36 PM
Mar 2019

a thought to what it would be like to have your government tell you what you can buy or not, or what you can believe or not.

Even if things are free there is a cost to be born by someone. There have to be trade offs.

What happed to Russia after the revolution? What did Marx or Lenin ever do for anyone.

Of course their brand of socialism will be utopia. It is the same with Libertarians. They never think it through because they know it will never happen.

They take no risks. Nobody will ever say, after the fact that, “Hey you were wrong.”

They enjoy the attention they get on a board like this.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
32. I don't disagree with much of what you wrote. But you miss the biggest problem.
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 10:56 PM
Mar 2019

And it why I never works...how to get from here to there. Plus ignoring reality.

First, you have to believe Economics is not scientific, put political. To me, that is on par with seeing Climate Change as political.

But the biggest problem is how to take wealth from those who have it. And I’m not just talking about Millionaires and Billionaires.

My wife and I have had good jobs for over 30 years and are good savers. We probably qualify as millionaires but have never earned our income from capital but from labor. But we plan on our retirement to be funded by the capital we have amassed, most in stocks of various companies. At that point we will be capitalist. Take that away and we are destitute.

Am I ok with higher taxes? Hell, I want them. But threaten my life’s savings and I will resist mightily.

It always involves violence. Even Marx knew and predicted that. But he did not envision a large middle class who’s long term prosperity depended on private capital because that did not exist when he did his writing.

Social Democracy is the secret to harnessing the unrivaled power of capitalism to generate wealth and insuring those without capital benefit from the system.

I really like these socialism discussions on DU. They don’t seem to turn into pissing matches as often as other subjects.




 

wasupaloopa

(4,516 posts)
47. I cannot agree that economics is political. The minipulation of the economy by polititions is real.
Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:34 PM
Mar 2019

enough. Economics is not a science either. But over time you can see cause an effect relationships in economics enough to be able to predict an out come.

There would be no need for total socialism if we had educated people with the skills to think critically and real democracy with the common good as it's motive.

I think some people believe socialism is needed because they believe the cards are stacked against them it's the only way they can get even.

They never envision property being taken away from them but it will be taken from others and shared with them.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
43. No. But you did not log onto Socialist Underground either
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 11:35 PM
Mar 2019

Cause most of us here are not socialist and want no part of real socialism, the collective ownership of the means of production.

We are democrats. We mainly believe in social democracy.

Or just call us democrats.

Poiuyt

(18,087 posts)
31. It doesn't matter what we call liberals
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 10:48 PM
Mar 2019

Republicans will call us what they want anyway. I have to say that conservatives are much better at framing the narrative than we are.

Snackshack

(2,540 posts)
39. Democrat
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 11:15 PM
Mar 2019

I have been since I became eligible to vote 30+ yrs ago and always will be the other choice is simply to u bearable to even contemplate nowadays.

More importantly I am a humanist (for lack of a better term). I believe all people should be equal under the law. That all people should have access to shelter, food, water, medical care, education and employment. That all people have a right to be heard and to equal representation in our government across all 3 branches. That injustice in any form should never be tolerated. That all people should be free to live life as they choose, how they choose and where they choose with in the boundaries of our laws and I will extend respect and courtesy to anyone who holds these same values regardless of race, gender or creed.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
44. "Social Democrats" is already taken
Sat Mar 9, 2019, 11:47 PM
Mar 2019

It's the center left party in a lot of central European countries, generally opposed to a "Christian Democrats" party on the center-right.

tirebiter

(2,520 posts)
45. That's my understanding
Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:09 AM
Mar 2019

It should be noted that western Socialists rejected Marx while he was still alive.

 

liberalnarb

(4,532 posts)
50. There are lots of parties with the name (country name here) Social Democratic Party.
Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:11 PM
Mar 2019

However, Social Democrat is also a term that describes a political philosophy not necessarily connected to a specific political party. FDR, for example, is often, in my opinion correctly, labeled a Social Democrat. Social Democracy is the type of system you see in the majority of nations in Europe. Scandinavian countries are the most common examples of Social Democracies proponents usually give.
A Social Democracy usually provides a very strong social safety net, much stronger than that which currently exists in the United States. Social Democracies are typically economies where private market relationships still exist and are backstopped by robust Welfare States that are strong enough to prevent unemployment from being a death sentence.

saidsimplesimon

(7,888 posts)
51. pwb, I remain a Progressive Democrat
Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:35 PM
Mar 2019

Yes, lifting all boats increases corporate profits and strengthens the US. However, corporations seek only profits, paying no taxes, reducing the work force and delivering US to the dustbin of history. imo

pwb

(11,205 posts)
53. Progressive Democrat is good. No ist or ism in progressive.
Sun Mar 10, 2019, 06:15 PM
Mar 2019

I think trickle down was always meant for wages. It raised profits mostly. My flood to raise all boats would be directed toward wages not profits. Profits would come with more people have buying power. The pukes never seem to get that. More people having the ability to buy their goods and services would really make our country great. Peace.

Meowmee

(5,164 posts)
55. Just call them democrats and drop all the other labels
Sun Mar 10, 2019, 07:43 PM
Mar 2019

And push the policies which will help people. If you do a google search you can refresh whatever you learned about this to see that socialism is not communism. Socialist gov can have democratic capitalist economies or mixtures of capitalism and state ownership, most have strong welfare programs. Or they can be right wing and fascist. In scandinavia they usually call it social democracy but Norway has state ownership in the stock market and controls the larger companies.

Most people just think of communism and fascism when they hear socialism so we don’t want to use that term at all now.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Maybe we should drop the ...