I'm a Democrat and not a Democratic Socialist

[evertonfc]

I can't believe our party...the party of JFK, Clinton and Obama is reasonably close to nominating an almost 80 year old Democratic socialist with an early history of fawning over leftist regimes abroad. It's a loser in middle America. I like Sanders passion, many of his ideas and will vote for him if he's the nominee. I don't think he will be but will support him. My 30 years of working on campaigns in the southeast tells me he will lose massively. The "Socialist" GOP campaign that lays wait will be unrelenting and successful. We will lose house seats in Red states and South Florida will revolt. Polls now show a close race with Trump. This before the billion dollar "Socialist" campaign and is unleashed with 5 years of opposition research and mounds of video and audio that will make much of America write Bernie off before October. Trump campaign knows who they want to run against. In 2020 a Democratic socialist may win the nomination of my party of 30 plus years. It will set us back decades. We will be Democratic socialists.

[DanTex]

1. Sounds like Bernie Sanders is not your preferred candidate for the nomination.

[brutus smith]

2. Being a go along get along candidate will end the Democratic party.

[Lunabell]

4. Absolutely

E. Warren is my 2nd choice.

[mzmolly]

51. We can't let democracy

die to make a point, however.

Vote Blue.

[Lunabell]

3. I am a Democrat and a Democratic socialist.

This is the party of FDR and we need to return to our working class roots to save our democracy. Billionaires have taken control and we need to return the power to the people. Viva la revolution! We will win!

[brutus smith]

11. +1000

[Celerity]

12. So you believe the state should own and control the means of production?

That is a fundamental taproot of socialism.

Bernie is a social democrat, unless he is actually not being truthful when he says.

The very definitions of social democrat and democratic socialist are fundamentally divergent.

Socialism's end goal is state/societal control of the means of production, ofttimes via nationalisation. I can assure you that that is not the endgame in any of the social democracies on the planet.

You may very well be an actual socialist, but do not try and say that is the same as bog standard social democratic forms of governance and economic ordering. Come here (I am doing post grad studies in Sweden) and try and tell them they live in a socialist nation. They will laugh at you, just as they would laugh at a RW American saying the same thing (albeit the RW says that for different reasons.)

Sweden has a very robust capitalist system as one of its fundamental organising principles, they just do a far better job at regulation and steering the outcomes of it, especially in terms of income inequality, which is the most important overarching and interlocking statistic that determines the well-being of a nation state.

Bernie's stubbornness in terms of false self-labelling (as a democratic socialist) via to his futile attempts try to change close to 200 year old, pervasive, globally accepted (at both academic levels and in everyday informal parlance) political/economic definitions is not only suicidal electorally speaking, but has the spill-over effect of doing great damage to our Democratic Party as a whole. It feeds into bullshit RW messaging that falsely smears us all as socialists and thus (in the reactionary and woefully brainwashed USA) the even more false and loaded term, 'commies.'



What socialism is — according to Bernie Sanders

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has been calling himself a democratic socialist since the 1960s.
Bernie's use of the word "socialist" has attracted both love and ire from the left.
His definition of socialism is vague, but is the basis for many peoples' understanding of the concept.

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/what-is-socialism-bernie-sanders?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3

snip

Luckily for us, Senator Sanders explained his political philosophy in a speech he delivered at Georgetown University in 2015. (The entire speech can be viewed here.)

He begins by referring to the New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt and pointing out the good that it did for a country in the depths of the Great Depression:

"He saw one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished. And he acted. Against the ferocious opposition of the ruling class of his day, people he called economic royalists, Roosevelt implemented a series of programs that put millions of people back to work, took them out of poverty and restored their faith in government. He redefined the relationship of the federal government to the people of our country. He combated cynicism, fear and despair. He reinvigorated democracy. He transformed the country. . . . And, by the way, almost everything he proposed was called 'socialist.'"

The senator then muses on several issues facing the United States, income inequality, unemployment, high rates of childhood poverty, the high cost of medical care, and a declining faith in our political system, among others, and decides that the concentration of wealth and power is both the root cause of them and the key reason why we have failed to solve them. His solution, of course, is "socialism." It is then that he gives us his conception of what that is:

"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."

He goes a bit into the particulars of policy and explained that his conception of socialism would require — this is what it would look like — universal health care, total employment, free college education, more public spending, a living wage, environmental regulations, and a robust democratic culture to come into existence. He flatly denied any interest in nationalization, telling the audience:

"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."

The contents of this speech were very similar to other statements he has made about socialism across his entire political career. The entire speech could have been summed up neatly in a quote he gave to the Associated Press back in 1997:

"To me, socialism doesn't mean state ownership of everything, by any means, it means creating a nation, and a world, in which all human beings have a decent standard of living."

Wait a moment, praise for the New Deal? No interest in nationalization? That definition sounds a lot like capitalism!

You might have noticed that this program focuses on making capitalism work better and not replacing it with an entirely new system based on social ownership. This has made his definition of socialism a matter of contention.

While "socialism" is a system based around replacing private ownership of the means of production with social ownership, which generally means having the workers own and operate them instead — either through cooperatives or the state — Bernie hasn't shown much of an interest in using the government to promote this change.

Bernie's explanation of "socialism" is, in fact, closer to what political philosophers refer to as "social democracy." This is a capitalist system, since the means of production are still privately owned, where the state heavily regulates the economy and has an active welfare system in place to correct for the worst problems inherent to capitalism like inequality, cyclic instability, or the profit motive encouraging people to do things against the public interest.

snip



FDR went out of his way to say no to socialism



What FDR Understood About Socialism That Today’s Democrats Don’t

He ruled at the height of government activism, but saw ideology as something to fear, not embrace.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/16/democrats-socialism-fdr-roosevelt-227622

President Franklin D. Roosevelt arrived at Franklin Field on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania in characteristic style: beaming, from the back seat of an open car. He had earned this smile. It was June 27, 1936, and he had just been re-nominated by acclamation in the smoke-filled Philadelphia Convention Center a few blocks away. It was, arguably, the high-water-mark of his career. Thanks to the monumental initiatives of Roosevelt’s first term, it was also a moment of transcendent significance in the nation’s history, though none of the 100,000 people sweating in the yellow-brick football stadium realized it. This was the pinnacle of American socialism, by that or any other name.

In the four years just past, Roosevelt had transformed the purpose of the United States government, making it a constant companion in the lives of Americans. The Social Security Act of the previous year was merely the crowning achievement. Roosevelt’s initiatives, meant to curb the misery brought on by the Great Depression, directly funded millions of government jobs, employing everyone from photographers to brush-clearing conservation workers. To pay for this, he raised the income tax—which hadn’t even existed two decades earlier—to 75 percent on the highest incomes. The rich were subsidizing the poor, and that was A-OK with FDR.

The giant crowd bristled with excitement to hear their hero defend these policies. What followed was his so-called “Rendezvous with Destiny” speech, which historians rank among the greatest of his career, a tall order from the man whose oratorical roster included “nothing to fear but fear itself,” and “a day that will live in infamy.” But while those speeches perfectly captured individual moments, Roosevelt’s “Rendezvous with Destiny” speech came far closer to revealing his inner theories and motivations: Never before or after would he lay out his vision in greater clarity.

That vision included one truly insistent message: He was not a socialist.

Though he never used the term socialism in his speech, Roosevelt’s anger at those who accused him of ideological motivations, of applying an economic theory that was anathema to the United States, exploded from the lectern. In line after line, the fiery president defended his actions as pragmatic responses to the real, glaring needs of a changing society. The rich who criticized him, who cloaked their greed in an affinity for capitalism, were dangerously missing his point. He knew the ideological threats of communism and of fascism were real, and were overtaking democracy in European countries. An etched-in-stone commitment to the status quo would be an invitation to extremists everywhere. By fulfilling the government’s obligation to assist its people, he was instilling confidence in the American system. He was vindicating the Founding Fathers.

snip



“Is the New Deal Socialism?” by Norman Thomas

Norman Thomas was the most prominent spokesperson for the Socialist Party of America in the 1930s and 1940s. He ran six times for president on the SP ballot line. Recently, an article by Seth Ackerman of Jacobin magazine argued that Thomas acknowledged that President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs had socialist aspects and this, essentially, is why Bernie Sanders isn’t wrong to invoke the New Deal legacy when he uses the term “democratic socialism.” Nevertheless, the pamphlet from 1936 that we partially reproduce here makes it clear that Thomas didn’t think that the New Deal equaled socialism and that Roosevelt was no socialist.



https://newpol.org/is-the-new-deal-socialism-by-norman-thomas/

Mr. Roosevelt and his followers assume that prosperity is coming back because of the New Deal. Al Smith and the rest of Roosevelt’s assorted critics assume that it is in spite of the New Deal and perhaps because of the Supreme Court. Mr. Hoover plaintively protests that the catastrophic depression of January – February, 1933, was due merely to the shudders of the body politic anticipating the economic horrors of the New Deal.

As a Socialist, I view the Smith – Roosevelt controversy with complete impartiality. I am little concerned to point out the inconsistencies in Al Smith’s record, or to remind him that in 1924 and 1928, when I happened to be the Socialist candidate for high office against him, more than one of his close political friends came to me to urge me as a Socialist not to attack him too severely since he really stood for so many of the things that Socialists and other progressive workers wanted.

But I am concerned to point out how false is the charge that Roosevelt and the New Deal represent socialism. What is at state is not prestige or sentimental devotion to a particular name. What is at state is a clear understanding of the issues on which the peace and prosperity of generations — perhaps centuries — depend. A nation which misunderstands socialism as completely as Al Smith misunderstands it is a nation which weakens its defense against the coming of war and fascism.

But, some of you will say, isn’t it true, as Alfred E. Smith and a host of others before him have charged, that Roosevelt carried out most of the demands of the Socialist platform? This charge is by no means peculiar to Mr. Smith. I am told that a Republican speaker alleged that Norman Thomas rather than Franklin D. Roosevelt has been President of the United States. I deny the allegation and defy the allegator, and I suspect I have Mr. Roosevelt’s support in this denial. Matthew Woll, leader of the forces of reaction in the American Federation of Labor, is among the latest to make the same sort of charge.

Roosevelt Not Socialist

Emphatically, Mr. Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher.

snip

[Lunabell]

15. Blah, blah, blah

You read my short and concise post.

[Celerity]

17. 'blah blah blah' as response is a fail. Please answer my simple question: Do you believe the state

should control the means of production?


I just completely rebutted your attempt to falsely try and conflate FDR with socialism, as well, so whilst indeed concise, your reply was also faulty and flawed.

[Laelth]

21. Great post. Thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[Celerity]

23. thank you so much

[PETRUS]

24. Butting in, sorry...

You wrote: "So you believe the state should own and control the means of production? That is a fundamental taproot of socialism."

That's not true. It's one possible means to and end, and one of many methods that's been proposed and tried, but it's not the defining characteristic of socialism, or the only method that socialists have proposed.

Karl Polanyi (a socialist) defined socialism as "the conscious subordination of the self-regulating market to democratic society." That seems to be the approach Sanders and most people calling themselves "democratic socialists" are taking. Socialists agree on a lot of general principles, but there are a lot of different ideas about how to go about things.

It's interesting that you quote Norman Thomas. Here's another Norman Thomas quote: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation." FDR was no socialist (and Thomas clearly understood that), but many aspects of the New Deal (and European social democracy) were in fact policies first suggested by socialists.

[Dennis Donovan]

27. You get a heart for that...

[PETRUS]

31. Thanks, man!

[Celerity]

36. Well, Bernie should have followed Norman Thomas' maxim

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation.

I like that you brought up Polanyi. He is a very original and deep thinker, and I find his version of 'socialism' to be more along the lines of social democracy than a stricter interpretation of democratic socialism.

two really good articles on him

Karl Polanyi and twenty-first century socialism

Polanyi’s views were the exact opposite of his contemporary, Joseph Schumpeter, who famously defined democracy as giving people a choice over which elite group would rule over them.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/karl-polanyi-and-twenty-first-century-socialism/


Karl Polanyi and the economics of Labour

Karl Polanyi is being hailed as the intellectual inspiration behind Labour's new economic strategy. But, as Gareth Dale notes, his work, though rich, lacks a thorough conception of political power.

https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4015-karl-polanyi-and-the-economics-of-labour

[PETRUS]

39. As a tactical suggestion, you could be right.

Meaning it's possible a politician could get better traction in the US by avoiding the term "socialism."

And yes, Polanyi was a very interesting thinker. I've read him (I consider The Great Transformation to be an essential book), but haven't made a point of reading about him, except in the sense that he's been referenced in a number of books (by other authors) that I've read.

Thanks for the links!

[Celerity]

43. yw! nice chatting

[PETRUS]

44. You bet. Just finished the Verso article. Rather interesting. nt

[Sympthsical]

25. I just joined to let you know how much I enjoyed this post

I’ve been lurking a long time at a friend who posts here’s recommendation, but have avoided dipping my toes in until now.

While skimming the usual back and forth of this sub forum while on a bus, I came across this lovely, knowledgeable post. As a former history major, I wanted to clap.

I agree with you, btw. I think calling himself a democratic socialist is a grievous error. It introduces the word “socialist” into the conversation at his own behest. To me, Bernie seems like your run of the mill European social democrat. Which is fine! I like him and his ideas, even if he’s not my first choice. But, words have meanings, and they can’t be twisted to suit when they are so viscerally unsuited.

(Since DU made me state a preference, I went with undecided. I was/am an enthusiastic Yang supporter. My current order is Buttigieg, Warren, Sanders. Klobuchar would be fine. Not a fan of Biden - he always seems determined to march us firmly forward into the 1990s. Bloomberg is a total nonstarter).

Anyway, thank you again. I’m going to go read the Rendevouz with Destiny speech after dinner later. That takes me back to my poly-sci days.

[Celerity]

38. welcome to DU and thank you so much for the kind words!

[marble falls]

45. But of course you'll enthusiastically support Bloomberg if he gets the nod, right?

[Sympthsical]

46. Without the slightest hesitation.

As I said, I share the feeling of urgency about the Trumpian threat.

[ChubbyStar]

47. Poly-sci?

Us poli-sci types generally use poli not poly.

[Sympthsical]

52. Writing posts on a phone is a treacherous endeavor

I’m usually good at picking out the autocorrects. But I do also like all of the sciences ^^

[Fresh_Start]

29. +1000

I checked the congress when the new deal was enacted...there was not one single democratic socialist in congress. They were all democrats, enacting a democratic law.

Taking credit for someone else work is stealing credit.

[Celerity]

42. Many of Bernie's ideas are great, but his packaging and the cadre with which he surrounds himself

are terribly divisive and non-productive. He alienates so many potential allies in a forlorn quest for revolutionary confrontation. The average decent American does not want to go into a Paris Commune-style overthrow of a preternaturally vast amount of norms and conventions, which, now, just like in 1871, will inevitably end in La semaine sanglante, at least on a symbolic level.

[Fresh_Start]

49. He wastes his time and his supporters time trying to redefine

and rescue the term socialism.

Its an ego trip for him.


We can do better.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

63. Well said

[Quixote1818]

50. + 1000 nt

[Doremus]

57. Hear hear!!

[Gravitycollapse]

5. Americans really need to get over their fear of social democracy.

In any other country, Sanders is center-left. It’s only in the US, where McCarthyism shifted the Overton window so far to the right, that we hesitate.

[MoonlitKnight]

7. And might even be center

Rather than center-left.

The United States is woefully behind the rest of the world. Heck, conservatives in freaking Canada are for keeping single payer. Anyone advocating a return to a predominantly private market would be considered a radical extremist.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. Hell, I know people who think Sanders is centrist.

He’s definitely not very far left.

[Celerity]

18. so why does Bernie falsely self-label as a democratic socialist? He is simply a social democrat, and

I give your credit for at least using the correct term. Democratic socialism is a profoundly different system, and is loaded up with negative connotations in reactionary America. It is political suicide to claim that label in the US, and doubly self-defeating as he is not even what he calls himself.

[Gravitycollapse]

19. He's probably philosophically DS but pragmatically SD

I’m the same way.

[Celerity]

20. If he was pragmatic, he would never self-label as a dem soc. Furthermore, IF he actually is

a true democratic socialist in the full and correct sense of the term, then he is a profoundly ill-suited vessel in which to entrust the truly awful and awesome power than comes nowadays with the American presidency. State ownership of the means of production is a disastrous policy that has always failed and has consistently destroyed the nations that have attempted it and then persevered down its bramble-laden path, even in the face of its massive shortcomings and shambolic outcomes.

[Gravitycollapse]

35. We will have to agree to disagree on that.

But I’m pretty confident Bernie has zero interest in turning us into Venezuela.

[Celerity]

37. he couldn't even if he wanted to, lolol

not laughing at you at all, btw

[gollygee]

55. They won't get over it by November. nt

[brooklynite]

59. Is there a social democrat running?

Nobody has identified themselves as such

[Zolorp]

66. That WILL NOT HAPPEN in 2020

You've got two, maybe three generations before a majority of the electorate MIGHT accept it.

I never will.

[Kurt V.]

6. i certainly appreciate your 30 years on working on campaigns but those metrics no longer apply

[Nanjeanne]

8. Well lots of well known people have been Democratic Socialists that are respected in the Democratic

Party - so I don't think it's anything to worry about. These would be some pretty awesome people to have a connection to:

Martin Luther King Jr
Eugene Debs
Upton Sinclair
Helen Keller
Carl Sandburg
Albert Einstein
George Orwell
HG Wells
Nelson Mandela

just to name a few . . .

[Horizens]

53. No One On Your List

could have won a presidential election.

[Cha]

10. ...

[ChubbyStar]

13. There is a 5 month age gap between Bloom and Bernie

So your point about age?

[Zolorp]

67. Bloomberg hasn't had a recent heart attack

[Scotch-Irish]

14. So you don't believe in social security? Medicare? Medicaid? Labor Unions?

Those are social democratic policies. Public education is a social democratic policy...Bernie and others just want to extend it to college like so many other countries.

[Fresh_Start]

32. no, they are not. They are democratic policies enacted by democrats.

Stop stealing credit from people who worked hard for their achievements.

[Donkees]

64. Don't forget Meyer London

Meyer London, a Socialist Jew, was a politician who not only ran for Congress, but his economic proposals were advanced for his time, and they later were encompassed in Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal platform.

When Congressman Meyer London died in 1926, half a million New Yorkers attended his funeral. “For six hours,” the New York Times reported, “the Lower East Side put aside its duties, pressing or trivial, to do honor to its dead prophet.” Although a politician, London was so respected for his learning–even by his political opponents–that he was buried in the Writer’s Lane section of Mount Carmel cemetery, near the grave of Sholom Aleichem and other Jewish cultural heroes. London’s working-class instincts and intellectual acumen made him advocate for social legislation that later formed the heart of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal platform.

London immediately sponsored bills which Congress defeated, yet later became integral elements of the New Deal program: minimum wage, unemployment insurance and increased taxes on the wealthy. He fought for then-radical ideals such as anti-lynching laws, higher immigration quotas, and paid maternity leave. Prescient in his own day, London’s economic proposals became right for the 1930’s and 40’s, and his civil rights proposals became law in the 1960’s.



https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/meyer-london-a-jew-in-congress/

[Desert grandma]

16. I am in total agreement.

Thank you for the post. What you predict if Sanders is the nominee is a realistic vision. I am with you. VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO. But I hope it isn't Sanders. I can not stomach four more years of the Orange Maggot.

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. +1

Much too risky.

[apcalc]

26. Biden, Bloomberg, Sanders....All nearing 80

Too damn old... methinks....and Sanders just having a heart attack?

Realistically????
No, no, and no.

Nuts.

[David__77]

28. Ron Dellums was a DSA vice chair.

There being socialists within the Democratic Party certainly is not a new thing.

Dolores Huerta was in DSA.

AFL-CIO head John Sweeney was as well.

Socialists and non-socialists have a place in the Democratic Party, in my opinion. And I think it's OK to nominate socialists and non-socialists to be candidates.

[colsohlibgal]

30. Semantics

Medicare for all polls very strong. And a progressive tax policy.....we had it from FDR till Reagan. Again the top marginal tax rate every year Republican Dwight Eisenhower was in Office was 91 or 92%. It was was still quite high till Reagan wound up cutting it by about half.

Democratic socialism just means a more fair sharing of the pie, operating as we did for 30+ years.

The younger generation skews pretty liberal, they drove the blue tsunami in 2018, think they will be turned off if we tack back toward the middle.

I’m a Boomer Gal who has not tacked back toward the middle.

[redraider1974]

33. Bernie and his "Bernie or Bust" supporters will have been responsible for

2 straight democratic presidential election losses. And he's not even a democrat. He is literally the only democratic candidate that would lose badly to Trump. He had a heart attack. Strike 1. He's almost 80 years old and he looks it. Strike 2. He can be tagged as a socialist in the election. Strike 3. He said prisoners should be able to vote. Strike 4. Bernie's supporters are delusional to think he could win against Trump. If Bernie is somehow not the nominee, I predict "Bernie or Bust" people will again not vote for the Democratic nominee because, basically, they are not democrats they are socialists.

[apcalc]

40. You tell me, why...after many years in the Senate, would one

Run, for the first time, for president at age 74?

I have my own ideas.... will you share yours?

[Doremus]

58. More Bernie voters voted for HRC

than HRC voters voted for Obama. Remember the PUMAs? Well they voted for McCain in about twice the numbers than sanders voters voted for trump. FYI.

[William769]

34. I'm a FDR Democrat.

Before I hear any nonsense about his Socialism Read this.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/16/democrats-socialism-fdr-roosevelt-227622

[Smackdown2019]

41. Socialism

Karl Marx was a visionary of millions. He took what he envisioned what life should be and the stages it must take to achieve that way of life.

What many forget to consider, socialism has in America for CENTURIES. It is called Native American Culture. Land is not owned by man, its respected. Same as the animals that gives us life to feed upon. Simplicity is true Socialism. Capitalism is Cable TV, Cell Phones and high price hospitals.

What you work, what you drive yourself towards, how you invest sets you above others. That should not be taken!

[Amimnoch]

48. I could work with that. It's the slander, attacks, and damage they do to the party that I detest.

Michael Bloomberg focuses all of his attacks at the real enemy, Donald Trump.

BS and his Jill Stein supporting campaign staff, and his brigade of vocal acolytes spend their time, money, and energy attacking the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party candidates, the DNC, the supporters of Democratic Party candidates that refuse to bow at and kiss the bedrock of the Alter of BS.

I support the candidate('s) that focus attacks on Trump.

I will oppose all efforts of the candidate that temporarily don's out party name, and in turn attacks everyone else who wears the label of Democratic Party while virtually ignoring the real threat..

Bloomberg 2020.

OR

ANY Democratic Party candidate BUT BS 2020.

[Ferrets are Cool]

54. I believe it is a hill we cannot overcome in the General Election

Socialism and the images the Reich will dredge up will flood the airwaves and social media. It doesn't have to be true. The ignorant masses will be afraid.

[NurseJackie]

56. I'll never support a Socialist or anyone who wants to hijack our party.

[Lunabell]

60. The party you are speaking of was hijacked years ago by corporatists.

When Bernie wins the nomination, I hope you will hold your nose and vote for the nominee just like I did in '16.

[NurseJackie]

61. Haaaaaa!

[MrsCoffee]

65. You had to hold your nose in '16?

Are you fucking kidding me? It was Trump or Clinton and you had to hold your nose?

FFS. You shouldn’t be wagging your finger at anyone.

[robbedvoter]

62. Nobody is a Democratic Socialism. It's an oxymoron.

Socialism is incompatible with Democracy. Nobody will vote away their property rights. It’s done by fiat and misery follows.