2020 Vision

[eastbound]

who said i brand myself "socialist"?? i believe that much in our society should be run by democratically elected government, in fair accessible elections--where the majority of initiative investment and resource allocation shd be determined by free markets

hell ive made my living trading capital markets for the past 38 years--they are the lubricant of our generally excellent capitalist economy

and there are many profiteers who have made good inroads into obscenely profitable contracting associated with our wars, with running our prisons, and leaching from our ridiculously over-leached health care, etc etc

and labels schmabels--weve had profiteers trying to get their hands on taxpayer-paid education funding for years--and look at the con of charter schools.... yes, in fact our military can be called a "socialist" entity within our system---so what?

rider, youre dating yourself with that McCarthyist crap--hope youre just trolling, and not dementing.....you should keep an eye on that...

[RideTheGlide]

Here is my issue.  Of your list, Military, Courts, Public Schools, Prisons (mixed) and many more are already government tended with no socialist labeling.  Health and Higher Ed raise more debate but they certainly do not require self-labeling as Socialist.  When you brand yourself socialist the question of further intention is immediately present and many individuals will not wait for or trust the answer.

Agreed. I hate to say I am a socialist for the same reason many (most?) in my generation do - it's the second S in USSR. My kids don't have this hang up and say I am a socialist and see that as a positive because they only think of the true meaning - that I believe many things should be provided equally for all - protection (law enforcement and military), roads, education, health care and a few other similar needs. I believe we should provide food and shelter for those who need either. I don't think everything should be government owned  and/or controlled.

who said i brand myself "socialist"?? i believe that much in our society should be run by democratically elected government, in fair accessible elections--where the majority of initiative investment and resource allocation shd be determined by free markets

hell ive made my living trading capital markets for the past 38 years--they are the lubricant of our generally excellent capitalist economy

and there are many profiteers who have made good inroads into obscenely profitable contracting associated with our wars, with running our prisons, and leaching from our ridiculously over-leached health care, etc etc

and labels schmabels--weve had profiteers trying to get their hands on taxpayer-paid education funding for years--and look at the con of charter schools.... yes, in fact our military can be called a "socialist" entity within our system---so what?

rider, youre dating yourself with that McCarthyist crap--hope youre just trolling, and not dementing.....

I agree with everything you say, but the "labels schmabels" doesn't survive the test of harsh reality yet. Admin stated that best, IMO, in the part of his post I bolded. As was clearly demonstrated in 2016, perception can be as important as reality if not more so.

[Admin]

who said i brand myself "socialist"??

Hi East,

I wrote that poorly.  I wrote "When you brand yourself socialist" but I should have written, "when a candidate brands his/her self as socialist".  I didn't think that you were conveying that at all. 

[Area 10]

Why do you guys in the US get so uptight about the word “socialist”? You do realise that the rest of the world uses that word all the time to describe a general orientation, or degrees of it - it’s not a religion or an absolute thing, right? Mainly outsude the US, and in everyday language (and when not being used by despotic dictators to hide their true intent) it just refers to the belief that the rich will prey mercilessly upon the poor unless you do what you can to provide the poor with opportunities to better their situation. And believing that having the rich prey mercilessly upon the poor is not healthy for a society. Some of the poor will make the most of the opportunities you provide, and some won’t. That’s up to them. But socialism is about trying to ensure that those opportunities exist - i.e. that there can be social mobility. There are a gazillion ways of doing that, and none are absolute. So you just choose the flavour that suits you. Isn’t the possibility of social mobility at the heart of the “American Dream”?

So, it’s not such a scary and hideous thing, surely? Honestly, in the US it seems that if you describe yourself as a socialist you get the same reaction as if you said you were a paedophile. It’s no big deal, OK? Anyone who has even an ounce of compassion or empathy, or a sense of fairness and justice, in their personality already has a little bit of socialist going on inside them.

[PonoBill]

The political labels are more than a bit screwed up, both in the USA and worldwide. People use fascist and capitalist for anyone with right wing sympathies, liberal, socialist, and communist interchangeably for the left.

Technically, Liberal means anyone who believes in personal liberty, and equal treatment under the law.

Socialism refers to government ownership of the means of production and worker's exercising their power as the fundamental creators of value--they get paid for their work and can spend wages as they choose.

Communism means the workers own everything and work towards communal goals, with resources delivered according to need with no difference in resources provided by working more than is required.

Capitalism permits private ownership and owners keep and invest excess production.

Fascism is Socialism with capitalist overtones: Government regimentation and control of society and the economy.

Personal definitions aside, Socialism is a dirty word in the USA, and if it refers to the real Socialist deal, it is deservedly so. True socialism yields poverty, pogroms and misery and always results in the best connected, best prepared, and most ruthless people seizing power. Rich countries enacting social policies to give people an opportunity to escape the situation they were born into need a new label.

[Area 10]

“Rich countries enacting social policies to give people an opportunity to escape the situation they were born into need a new label“.

This is true. But that’s the real “everyday definition” of what people really mean by “socialism” in the Western world, rather than the obscure “academic definition” you gave earlier in your post (which was sure enough the definition a first-year student of political philosophy might give but would not be the one most people who vote left in the developed world would give, if you asked them “what does it mean to be a socialist?”).

But people who have little empathy or desire for equality of opportunity deliberately equate one with the other in order to disparage straightforward kindness and decency. It’s as accurate to equate the GOP with Nazi fascism as it is to equate socialism in the Western world with e.g. the Chinese form of government. It’s just another form of fake news to do that, and it would be nice IMO if my US friends would just calm down about that word and try to understand what people are actually meaning when they are saying it. They might find that it’s nothing to be scared about, after all. No-one is going to come and turn your house into a commune against your will, or force you to buy only one brand of toothpaste that is made by the government. We are just talking about how to help the little guy who has the will to succeed to be able to make it, in a society run by Harvard graduates and CEOs with deep pockets who don’t give a damn about him.

[Admin]

It is indeed a matter of perception and definition.  But none of this is going to change prior to our next election. 

"Just 18 percent of Americans react positively to the mention of socialism" https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/03/americans-mixed-message-for-2020-presidential-candidates-keep-your-socialist-hands-off-our-government-programs.html

That means we are talking about a huge # of democrats or potential Dem voters that do not see this as a positive term. We can do without that.

[Area 10]

Just invent a new term then. That’s how language evolves. None of your supposedly “socialist” candidates are really proposing anything like Pono’s definition of socialism. They mainly just mean a set of policies that aim to guard against the worst excesses of capitalism (eg. exploitation of people at the bottom of the social hierarchy), and to try to ensure that the economy (and broader society) works for as many people as possible, not just an elite few, so that everyone gets a fair chance in life. It shouldn’t be too hard to find a word for that aim.

[Weasels wake]

Just invent a new term then. That’s how language evolves. None of your supposedly “socialist” candidates are really proposing anything like Pono’s definition of socialism. They mainly just mean a set of policies that aim to guard against the worst excesses of capitalism (eg. exploitation of people at the bottom of the social hierarchy), and to try to ensure that the economy (and broader society) works for as many people as possible, not just an elite few, so that everyone gets a fair chance in life. It shouldn’t be too hard to find a word for that aim.

We have a phrase for that, it's "Life ,Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", in our country we do everything we can to insure that everybody has a fair chance at "life", and we do a pretty good job at it.  The conflict comes when the outcome doesn't seem to live up to some people's expectations, not enough people living up to their full potentials.
We can guarantee a fair chance, as best we can, but we can't, and shouldn't even try to guarantee equal results with everybody, you have the "liberty" to fail.
When we try to gigger the system so that everybody has the same results, then you've entered the world of socialism.  Less liberty to insure equal results, or in other words, everyone has the equal chance to rise to the same level of mediocrity.  No "happiness" there.

[Area 10]

Perhaps some people who have won the genetic lottery, and so are bright enough and presentable enough to climb the social ladder, feel that for the sake of a happier society, they might want to give a little bit of their income to others who weren’t so blessed in the genetic lottery, or in the parents they had, or the luck in life they got. It’s quaint Weasel that you believe that we all get what we deserve in life. But many feel that it’s often a case of “there but for the grace of God go I”, and take pleasure in helping other people (or trying to). Sometimes altruism is its own reward. A re-balancing of the cosmos, if you like.

But of course some people are just greedy and selfish. These people will typically attribute anything good in their lives to their own magnificence, and anything bad as being directly caused by others. However, these same people will attribute anything good in others’ lives to the good fortune of that person, and anything bad to the other person’s character.

These personality characteristics and attitudes to life are usually reflected in their voting patterns. So I guess each person just has to ask themself which group of people they want to hang with most, and vote that way.

Weasel, you’ll love this video:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-us-2016-35636893/us-election-2016-did-socialism-save-this-us-town

[Rider]

Wow area, it sucks to be you. I think I know why. I had the misfortune to be downtown London a couple weeks ago. Looking for deals on sailboats. What a worthless piece of shit city. London sucks big time. Been there many times and it just keeps getting worse. I feel really SORRY for you. NOT.....

[Area 10]

Wow area, it sucks to be you. I think I know why. I had the misfortune to be downtown London a couple weeks ago. Looking for deals on sailboats. What a worthless piece of shit city. London sucks big time. Been there many times and it just keeps getting worse. I feel really SORRY for you. NOT.....

Thanks for sharing. That’s why I don’t live in London any more.

[Rider]

So you’re good with London being a worthless piece of shit. It’s not just London, but you know that. Where do you go next?

[Tom]

Just invent a new term then. That’s how language evolves. None of your supposedly “socialist” candidates are really proposing anything like Pono’s definition of socialism. They mainly just mean a set of policies that aim to guard against the worst excesses of capitalism (eg. exploitation of people at the bottom of the social hierarchy), and to try to ensure that the economy (and broader society) works for as many people as possible, not just an elite few, so that everyone gets a fair chance in life. It shouldn’t be too hard to find a word for that aim.

How about the new term "Democratic socialism"?
I think Bernie and AOC  know that when opponents hear there proposals, they'll try to vilify them by calling them Socialist. They're trying to deflect that by using the new term "Democratic socialist" . They can't deny that wanting public education and health care is anything but socialistic, so they have to embrace the term. When AOC was asked in an interview if she wants to turn the US into a socialist country like Venezuela, she said no, like Norway, the happiest country in the world.

The term socialism has a different connotation to millennials that it does to baby boomers like me.  I was taught that there was very little difference between socialism and communism and communism is very very bad.

[Rider]

I’ve got it. Let’s take up a collection and send area 1 to Venezuela. We’ll put in a good word with Maduro. With your past education, you could become “The Magestrate del SUP de Venezuela “. While it lasts.....