Remember when socialism destroyed this country?

[Different Drummer]

[Rex]

1. It is disappointing to see people on our side scared of words and terms.

I mean, I expect that from GOPers. They have been brought up to be scared of their own shadow and as the years pass and Foxnews illness sets in, their IQ plunges.

And OF COURSE it is ALWAYS the system's fault and never the people in charge of the system.

[Different Drummer]

2. Well said!

n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. Maybe they're not on our side.

[Rex]

41. No doubt about it.

If you post like a conservative, chances are...

[Archae]

3. When Milwaukee elected their first socialist mayor...

His first act was to clean out and close down the "red light" districts, the previous mayor and his cronies lost badly due to rampant corruption, lots of bribes from pimps and madams were the norm.

[jwirr]

4. K&R

[Doctor_J]

5. Actually a LOT of Clinton supporters are adopting these same attacks right now

But don't call them right wingers!

[Feeling the Bern]

14. I don't. I call them what they are. Oligarchy loving corporate supporting DINOs.

[ronnie624]

16. They fear a world without capitalism.

Many, mistakenly believe that the opportunity to accumulate 'wealth', offers security. But it doesn't.

[CrispyQ]

28. Yours is the most spot on post I've read in a long time.

Many, mistakenly believe that the opportunity to accumulate 'wealth', offers security. But it doesn't.

Nicely stated.

[maxsolomon]

24. AKA, your fellow Democratic Party members

who's votes you will need if Sanders pulls off a miracle.

Keep on insulting everyone to our right. People love that. It doesn't alienate them at all.

[Feeling the Bern]

40. Yet is perfectly acceptable to insult everyone to the left

DU has made a major hard right shift.

[maxsolomon]

47. As a semi-neutral observer of this internecine conflict on DU

I'd say there's blood on the hands of both candidate's supporters. Sanders partisans cannot act the victim here; they've been slinging invective for months. You just did, too - is it your first time?

[Feeling the Bern]

48. I only attack when attacked or perceived to attack.

This is politics. Develop some thicker skin or get out. IT's that simple.

[840high]

45. yep +10

[Peace Patriot]

6. Thank you! So true!

[Thespian2]

7. Most voters can't define Socialism...

but for years, people have been taught to hate the idea because...it's communism, after all...
never expect Repukes to know the difference between the two -isms...or many Dems, for that matter...

[rusty quoin]

11. Yes, that is true.

And also true, the Republican Party is closer to fascism today, than the Democratic Party has ever come close to Communism...EVER!.

[Thespian2]

12. correct!

[pangaia]

34. In fact....

the Republican Party is closer to fascism today, than the Democratic Party has ever come close to SOCIALISM...EVER!.

[saidsimplesimon]

8. thanks for the blast from the past, DD recommended

You said so much with just a few words. Campaign attacks, and those most republicans are using, need a boogeyman.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Well played, Dreamer

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. What's annoying is seeing Hillary supporters talking like this.

[Albertoo]

15. FDR never called for 'democratic socialism' or 'revolution', Sanders did.

And social security is reformism, not a revolutionary ideal.
It was invented by Bismarck, hardly a socialist by any measure.

[ronnie624]

17. That doesn't mean that SS isn't a form of socialism.

Like a lot of rightists, you're just selectively defining the concept, to serve your ideology.

[Albertoo]

18. You appear not to know the definition of Socialism

The definition of socialism is about the means of production, not social security:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production

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

[disillusioned73]

20. Your (intentionally?)..

mudding the waters between semi-facts and rightwing talking points.. which is the point of the OP - does the right define anything that benefits everyday Americans as socialism or not? The indisputable answer is YES..

and I say semi-facts ( not to belittle your post), but because "socialism" has such a broad spectrum definition that one line from wikipedia just doesn't do it justice.. jmo

[Albertoo]

21. I fear I disagree on the definition of the word

To me, Socialism is what I quoted, which seems to be the prevalent definition.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

26. I am a socialist and Sanders supporter.

And you are correct.

Socialism is about democratic control of the means of production.

I hate it when people call social security "socialism." Is it a good thing? Yes. But it's not socialism.

[CanSocDem]

22. "social ownership" means...

...producing 'stuff' for EVERYBODY, not just profits for the 1%. (everybody can drive a Cadillac if they want to).

And controlling "the means of production" means jobs for EVERYBODY, not just for low-paid foreign or un-unionized domestic workers. And production is always for the good of the community, not just for the corporation.

With this in mind, no more Cadillacs will be built.



.

[Albertoo]

49. Those are ultimate objectives, not the definition of Socialism

[Martin Eden]

31. By that definition, Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist

Decades ago he might have been, but Senator Sanders is not advocating "social ownership" (government takeover) of the means of production.

[Albertoo]

50. Unless I am mistaken, it's Sanders himself who called himself a socialist?

[Martin Eden]

55. Democratic Socialist

The plain fact of the matter is that Senator Sanders is not advocating what you define as socialism.

[Albertoo]

56. Democratic Socialism has the same definition

collective ownership of the means of production

[Martin Eden]

57. Are you saying Bernie Sanders advocates collective ownership of the means of production?

The link below is Bernie on the issues. Read it for yourself, then quote the part where he calls for abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

[Albertoo]

59. All I'm saying is that the sandersnistas believe Sanders is preaching democratic socialism

How it came about, I'm not sure.

[Martin Eden]

63. I'm not familiar with "sandersnistas" and you have stated that Sanders is a socialist

The definition of "socialism" you supplied means collective ownership of the means of production.

That definition cannot be reconciled with the policies Sanders actually advocates.

I jumped into this discussion because of the definition of socialism you subscribe to and the FACT that Sanders does not fit that particular definition regardless of what label he applies to himself.

You have not been able to reconcile that definition with Bernie's actual policies.

Therefore, you either must accept a different definition applies here or that Sanders is not a socialist.

[Albertoo]

64. According to Berniesanders.com, Sanders declared he wants democratic socialism

In this speech, Bernie Sanders claims he wants democratic socialism

https://berniesanders.com/democratic-socialism-in-the-united-states/

And democratic socialism is defined as the collective ownership of the means of production.

Another reason why I'd feel in much safer hands with HRC.

[Martin Eden]

65. Did you even bother to read the content of the link you provided?

In it, Bernie Sanders defines what "Democratic Socialism" means in terms of actual policies. No where -- I repeat, nowhere -- does this include collective ownership of the means of production. He also cites several Western European countries as examples. FYI, in those countries the means of production are not collectively owned.

Obviously, Bernie Sanders is not talking about the kind of Democratic Socialism that involves collective ownership of the means of production. Nevertheless, you tenaciously cling to it as if it has any relevance to what Bernie Sanders would seek to accomplish as POTUS.

You say you'd "feel in much safer hands with HRC" ... is this entirely based on the definition of a word?

Bernie's statement:

So let me define for you, simply and straightforwardly, what democratic socialism means to me. It builds on what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said when he fought for guaranteed economic rights for all Americans. And it builds on what Martin Luther King, Jr. said in 1968 when he stated that; “This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor.” It builds on the success of many other countries around the world that have done a far better job than we have in protecting the needs of their working families, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor.

Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy.

Democratic socialism means that we must reform a political system in America today which is not only grossly unfair but, in many respects, corrupt.

It is a system, for example, which during the 1990s allowed Wall Street to spend $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to get deregulated. Then, ten years later, after the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior of Wall Street led to their collapse, it is a system which provided trillions in government aid to bail them out. Wall Street used their wealth and power to get Congress to do their bidding for deregulation and then, when their greed caused their collapse, they used their wealth and power to get Congress to bail them out. Quite a system!

And, then, to add insult to injury, we were told that not only were the banks too big to fail, the bankers were too big to jail. Kids who get caught possessing marijuana get police records. Wall Street CEOs who help destroy the economy get raises in their salaries. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. meant by socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else.

In my view, it’s time we had democratic socialism for working families, not just Wall Street, billionaires and large corporations. It means that we should not be providing welfare for corporations, huge tax breaks for the very rich, or trade policies which boost corporate profits as workers lose their jobs. It means that we create a government that works for works for all of us, not just powerful special interests. It means that economic rights must be an essential part of what America stands for.

It means that health care should be a right of all people, not a privilege. This is not a radical idea. It exists in every other major country on earth. Not just Denmark, Sweden or Finland. It exists in Canada, France, Germany and Taiwan. That is why I believe in a Medicare-for-all single payer health care system. Yes. The Affordable Care Act, which I helped write and voted for, is a step forward for this country. But we must build on it and go further.

[Martin Eden]

66. Furthermore ...

Further down in the link you provided, Bernie Sanders specifically stated:

So the next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, remember this:

I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.

I believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America instead of shipping jobs and profits overseas.

Are you still afraid that President Sanders would somehow confiscate private business and transfer ownership to the collective?

[truebluegreen]

58. For the most part he calls himself a democratic socialist.

I'd call him a social democrat, myself. Either way, he's not a socialist, no matter what anyone calls him.

[Albertoo]

60. I'd call him a demagogue, but that's just me

[truebluegreen]

61. Oh yeah--he's just like Trump.

[Albertoo]

62. Both are, IMHO

[Bradj5]

33. You cant be serious? You are citing a post from wikipedia?

[Albertoo]

51. The Merriam Webster definition is the same

Definition of socialism for Students. : a social system or theory in which the government owns and controls the means of production (as factories) and distribution of goods.

[highprincipleswork]

30. In this political climate, much worse to be a corporatist tied 2 Wall St than to be a socialist.

[Albertoo]

52. In troubled times, demagoguery works

That's what I see in the western world today: far left Greens, far right nationalists

[DLevine]

19. K&R. nt

[CrispyQ]

23. If I posted that on FB, here's the response I would get:

And even by people who are on or will soon be on both programs.

[IronLionZion]

29. The best part are people already on one or both

who claim they want both programs to end when they die because those lazy young people feel too entitled.

I actually had a 68 year old Republican tell me that social security and Medicare encourages young people to be lazy.

He was also pretty sure most immigrants are on welfare somehow.

[SheenaR]

37. That's what is so messed up about the American psyche

We have this mentality that if you didn't work for something you don't deserve it. Meanwhile, people all around the world in every developed nation get those same things as a right at birth.

[tenderfoot]

42. I think that about law enforcement and members of the military.

No one owes them anything. Our taxes dollars do that for them.

[tazkcmo]

53. I agree with half of that

I agree with the first part. Speaking as a veteran, no YOU don't owe me anything. I volunteered and was paid, which brings me to your second part and my respectful disagreement with it: Our tax dollars do that for them. Not so much in a lot of cases but that's not directly YOUR fault.

Still, I don't think you owe me anything, not even "Thanks for your service.". I always respond, "Forget it, I was paid.". It's after the military when things get f-ed up. That's when the tax dollars aren't there.

[tenderfoot]

54. But does world owe you anything after?

I'm being very facetious of course because I do think Veterans are entitled to healthcare, etc. for their service. I'm glad you seen my point.

[IronLionZion]

25. Trump will make America great again

back before we had pesky social programs and rights protections.

[Bucky]

27. We'd've taken our country back by now if Obama hadn't confiscated all our guns, dammit

[ChiciB1]

32. Kicking For Exposure! Good Point... Gotta Get Off Here, Work To Do... n/t

[w0nderer]

35. K & R n/t

[whatthehey]

36. Socialism is a bugaboo

Its power in political discourse is not what it is (which is neither of those programs of course) but in the loading and negative connotations it carries, especially among the demographics who vote at the highest rate. Yes it's nice to know younger folks don't buy into McCarthyism but they vote at a pathetic rate compared to those who do.



Which gives us an electorate with this opinion...



There's a reason the RW have called every Dem between FDR and Obama a socialist, when they are universally far from it. While Socialism in its modern European watered down version frequently known as Democratic Socialism (essentially economic free-market capitalism with heavy regulation of externalities, government guarantees of health care, education, and strong social safety nets) has much to recommed it, it remains feared, misunderstood, and disdained by those who vote most. Sanders would be a fine President and I support most of his agenda, but to imagine this accusation would not be even more powerful against him than against any Dem president or candidate for the same over the last century (because he alone has actually claimed the name and the philosophy, even though he is a watered down version too right now) is wilfull blindness.

[jpmonk91]

38. Keep fighting the good fight and

Thank you for the post

[warrprayer]

39. Kick

The boogeyman has no clothes

[TIME TO PANIC]

43. K & R! n/t

[craigmatic]

44. We need to go back to the new deal.

And by that I mean make people on public assistance do some form of community service once or twice a week.

[MrMickeysMom]

46. You answered it for me...

... even though I've listened to mucho Democrats praise FDR to the point where others WANTED to destroy that kind of "socialism".

Haruff!