Is "socialism" a scare word in America?

[All Englands Skies]

It was just one example of unlimited types of suffering, in spite of limited resources.

Funny how the mega-rich can buy up, control and hoard all the "limited resources".
There is never enough to go around, yet the wealthy can take far more of their fair share.

 

[All Englands Skies]

We are on the same page with a lot of this that's been discussed, but when it comes to this particular comment, I have to disagree. You talk as though workers in a Socialist system share something about the company and, as employees, get paid.

The fact is that a Socialist system is not Syndicalism. Instead, it is a system in which the central government DOES own and operate the industries and major businesses, excepting only for the matter of "National Socialism" or Fascism which some people consider to be a version of Socialism and others do not.

Many actually claim Italian Fascism is a warped child of Syndicalism, as Benito Mussolini switched from Socialism to "National-Syndicalism" and in early Fascism he Idolised Georges Sorel, considered many to be the leading light in "Revolutionary Syndicalism" (though Sorel was always changing his stance) and many claim that "Fascist Corporatism" is actually an altered Syndicalist Economic policy (well in Theory) also most of the original inner circle of Fascism came from the Italian Syndicalist movement.

I admit this, as a Syndicalist myself, though its easy to knee-jerk to distance from Fascism, I think its better to admit realities and history, as it has no bearing on what I believe, I am against Fascism and consider it to be a warped divergence and eventually seemed to drop its Quasi-Syndicalist stance altogether as time went on.

As for German National Socialism, that is a different story, it did not really grow out of Socialism or Syndicalism, it was always Racial Nationalism that adopted a faux-Socialist stance to further itself.

 

[All Englands Skies]

What you’re referring to is state-funded social programs, which isn’t what socialism is, as discussed above. It’s the non-working types that make capitalism appear closer to feudalism than a free society.

You might be right... I am, ultimately, an anarcho-syndicalist and I might just be slipping my preferred system under the banner of socialism. Assuming that’s the case, we still have to be careful equating “when the government does stuff” with “when the government owns all industry.” I still think it’s likely that the capitalist owners of big media networks have an interest in maintaining the status quo and thus use their pundits to spread fear and disinformation around the subject of socialism.

The Syndicalist will often find himself on the opposing side of most corrupt governments, against both uber-Capitalists and the Marxian Socialist. Look at the former Eastern Bloc, Syndicalists, Trade Unions and strikes were the grass roots of fighting against the corrupt Marxian elite, like Solidarity in Poland (well from the 1970-1985 it was a 100% Democratic Syndicalist party, but from 1985 onwards, the tail end of Communist rule, it started to be used as a platform for Neo-Liberals, Capitalism-advocates and free-market advocates and somewhat sold out on a lot of its original aims)

 

[ananda]

Funny how the mega-rich can buy up, control and hoard all the "limited resources".
There is never enough to go around, yet the wealthy can take far more of their fair share.

I agree, and that is horrible too.

IMO the solution is not more socialism to redistribute the goods of the mega-rich, but to dismantle the underlying system that allows their hoarding to happen.

 

[mark46]

You seem to imply that the left actively opposed Humphrey, Johnson, Clinton, Biden and Obama in the same way that the conservative right opposed Humphrey, Johnson, Clinton, Biden and Obama.
..

No, the left didn't oppose their own leaders in the same way as Republicans do now. They did stay home and elect Nixon, after active opposing Johnson while in office. They did actively attack Carter many times during his presidency. Clinton and his buddies had to form a separate organization to oppose the left who insisted on their agenda. The left opposed Obama a lot. They certainly strongly disapproved of Obamacare.

Also, the Democratic left lost the party lots of elections by voting 3rd party, in addition to those who stayed home. This certainly happened in 2000. It alos happened in 2016, although their were lots of other reasons for the loss by Clinton.
==========
Also, for me, it is clear that Pelosi should have accepted, and should accept a half loaf compromise from the Republicans on the stimulus [and perhaps another later]. Of course, she has no support from the left, and likely couldn't get their vote.

 

[Albion]

Funny how the mega-rich can buy up, control and hoard all the "limited resources".
There is never enough to go around, yet the wealthy can take far more of their fair share.

It depends on what is "fair," doesn't it? Or did that not cross your mind while you were writing?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's Marxist socialism, but doesn't include all forms of socialism.

Which form of socialism would you like to discuss then?

As noted, the Nordic countries aren't socialist, they still have a market economy, and allow for private ownership of businesses and don't have a centrally planned economy.

...so do you have an example of a country that voted in a truly socialist government, that was able to democratically vote it back out once things went south?

All of the examples of true socialism I can think of involved either a coup of some sort to get into power, or cases where people voted them in, but then closed the door behind them (via power grabs) to prevent any parties from challenging the in the future.

When "the guards face inward", so to speak, that usually means any democratic leverage the people have is long gone.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You don't think the majority of citizens could legitimately elect a socialist government?

With regards to socialism/communism, the question isn't "can you vote it in?"... The question is "can you vote it out?"

Any form of authoritarianism can be voted in...whether or not it's still democratic depends on whether or not it can be voted back out if the people don't like it.

Electing an authoritarian tyrant is easy in a democracy, getting rid of them later, after they've turned it it into something else, is a different box of skittles.

As a reminder

As soon as he won that election (democratically), and took power, he and his party banned opposition parties.

 

[FireDragon76]

With regards to socialism/communism, the question isn't "can you vote it in?"... The question is "can you vote it out?"

Any form of authoritarianism can be voted in...whether or not it's still democratic depends on whether or not it can be voted back out if the people don't like it.

Electing an authoritarian tyrant is easy in a democracy, getting rid of them later, after they've turned it it into something else, is a different box of skittles.

As a reminder
View attachment 289734


As soon as he won that election (democratically), and took power, he and his party banned opposition parties.

Socialists are not necessarily authoritarians.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Funny how the mega-rich can buy up, control and hoard all the "limited resources".
There is never enough to go around, yet the wealthy can take far more of their fair share.

Sounds like you're referring to "crony capitalism" which isn't a true free market system.

Like with anything else, checks and balances need to exist.

However, this muddying of terms has the potential to be problematic.


When enough people are conditioned to think "socialism is good" because "socialism is what Denmark is" (when it actually isn't), and then someone comes along advocating for true socialistic measures (like AOC and Sanders have with regards out education system), people are duped into thinking that they're advocating for the Nordic model when they're actually advocating for something that's entirely unsustainable. (Like when Sanders and AOC advocate for things like no-strings-attached universal tuition-free college for everyone, when that doesn't even remotely resemble what the Nordic countries have)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Socialists are not necessarily authoritarians.

If you expect it to work/produce, you have to be....

How does a socialist government remain productive without being heavy handed?

If you have a system where the government says "we decide what people will do to support the collective, and for the level of compensation we see fit", and a person says "nah, I'm not going to bust my hump doing something I don't like for a stipend that's less than I see fit, I'm just going to stay home and not do anything", the government has to do something if they wish to keep it afloat right?

Usually that involves very strict controls to keep people in.


A good indicator of whether or not a system is good is looking at how many people are trying to get in...an indicator of whether or not it's bad is looking at how many people are trying to get it out.


Do you have a particular example of a country that has a centrally planned economy and doesn't allow for private ownership of the means of production, that's thriving?

(Keeping in mind, a market economy with an expanded welfare state doesn't = centrally planned economy)

Per the video I linked before, the Danish PM himself said "we're not socialist"...

If someone wishes to still insist that they are a form of socialism, they'll need to provide a pretty compelling argument for why they think they know more about "what kind of country Denmark is" than the guy who's been a PM and held offices in the nation such as Minister of Finance (going back to 2001), Minister of Health, and Leader of their Liberal party since 2009.

 

[MIDutch]

When enough people are conditioned to think "socialism is good" because "socialism is what Denmark is" (when it actually isn't), and then someone comes along advocating for true socialistic measures (like AOC and Sanders have with regards out education system), people are duped into thinking that they're advocating for the Nordic model when they're actually advocating for something that's entirely unsustainable. (Like when Sanders and AOC advocate for things like no-strings-attached universal tuition-free college for everyone, when that doesn't even remotely resemble what the Nordic countries have)

Good to see that you aren't against what Denmark has then.

That seems like a step in the right direction (to someone who lived in the Netherlands).

 

[Tanj]

Do you have a particular example of a country that has a centrally planned economy and doesn't allow for private ownership of the means of production, that's thriving?

Do you have a particular example of a country that has a centrally planned economy and doesn't allow for private ownership of the means of production? (with the exception of North Korea)

 

[mark46]

Which form of socialism would you like to discuss then?

I vote for none. The word "socialism" should never be used in a discussion of US politics. Almost no politician espouses socialism. The tenets of socialism are not going to become law in the US.

The only purpose for the us of the term is for Republicans to scare their base and others with regard to the Democratic Party and its candidates. This strategy worked incredibly well nation-wide in 2016. It worked well in some districts in 2020, especially in Florida.

 

[Andrewn]

And this is the direction in which our country appears to be heading. Many people will foolishly think it's still a democracy just because they cast ballots.

Any observer of the latest elections would say that it is the far-right Trumpers who want to disenfranchise voters and "pull the ladder behind them."

The far-right did the same in Islamist countries. Ultimately, authoritarian far-right and far-left populists end up behaving undemocratically.

Any form of authoritarianism can be voted in...whether or not it's still democratic depends on whether or not it can be voted back out if the people don't like it. Electing an authoritarian tyrant is easy in a democracy, getting rid of them later, after they've turned it it into something else, is a different box of skittles.

Agreed.

 

[Albion]

Any observer of the latest elections would say that it is the far-right Trumpers who want to disenfranchise voters and "pull the ladder behind them."

Is that now the agreed-upon reply to any mention of the many cases of fraud and voting errors that occurred during the 2020 Presidential election? It seems so.

At first, the claim was that there was no voting fraud. None.

When that became impossible to sustain, it became "There is no evidence of vote fraud."

Then it became "There is no evidence of widespread vote fraud." (Apparently, there is a certain level of vote fraud that is supposed to be acceptable.) I observed more than a few examples of "Well, (it happened but) it didn't change any election results!"

But more and more lately I've been seeing what you said here.

It's an old favorite and shows up when the issue itself can no longer be denied: turn the issue around and claim--along with some words like "far-right" that show how outraged the speaker supposedly is--that, actually, it was the victims who did the deed! Yeh, THEY did it!

The far-right did the same in Islamist countries. Ultimately, authoritarian far-right and far-left populists end up behaving undemocratically.

As I was just saying....

 

[Andrewn]

Is that now the agreed-upon reply to any mention of the many cases of fraud and voting errors that occurred during the 2020 Presidential election? It seems so.

I will not address this since it's not the subject of this thread (there are already too many threads dealing with post-election conspiracy theories).

The point I see being made in this thread is that far-left socialism has become a scare word partially bec it frequently leads to undemocratic society.

OTOH, far-right authoritarianism has slipped into our political system almost unnoticed and Democrats and moderate Republicans need a descriptive scare word to warn people against this type of ideology. The usual description is "fascism" but most voters would not identify with this word.

 

[Albion]

The point I see being made in this thread is that far-right socialism has become a scare word partially bec it frequently leads to undemocratic society.

And dictatorship IS scary.

But if we are going to make an issue of scare words, the "Liberals" are way, way ahead in that department. Just consider all the hateful 'scare words' that were hurled at President Trump over the past four years. most without any connection to facts.

In the case of Conservatives who warn about Socialism, there's nothing "made up" there, not when the biggest vote-getter in the Democratic primaries over the last two Presidential elections, Bernie Sanders, IS a self-identified Socialist.

And then we can point to the 70,000+ member Democratic Socialists of America organization that is endorsed by Congresspersons in our government.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Good to see that you aren't against what Denmark has then.

That seems like a step in the right direction (to someone who lived in the Netherlands).

Actually, with regards to what the Nordic countries have, I'd be okay with adopting their model for college education.

It's free for the people who get to go (so that accessibility isn't determined by family wealth), however that "who gets to go" is based on a strict, very selective meritocratic system, and the majors students can pursue once their in are quota driven based on job placement prospects and how marketable the skills will be.

...IE: not having 10's of thousands of kids trying to major in journalism and performing arts when everyone knows full well there won't be 10's of thousands of job openings in those fields.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you have a particular example of a country that has a centrally planned economy and doesn't allow for private ownership of the means of production? (with the exception of North Korea)

The list of countries that are actually socialist is small after the fall of the Soviet Union.

...and continues to shrink.

For instance, even Cuba started making the transition about 8 or 9 years ago to start allowing private sector businesses to open, and if I'm not mistaken, finally started recognizing the concept of private home ownership. However, Cuba (and Belarus) still have a situation where their public sector size is still around 70%.

China has increasingly been making the move toward a more mixed economy over the past few decades.

Vietnam started allowing for the concept of "public-private partnerships" for businesses in certain industries (granted, they still only allow one business per person).

Laos has also been moving in that direction as well and in the late 80's, started encouraging some private sector activities. (however, the government still maintains control of the critical ones...so in that regard, it's still very much centrally planned for the most part)


It also depends on which means of production are being referred to, and how much of it is "up for grabs" by the private sector.

For instance, if a hypothetical country maintaining overwhelming majority ownership of most of the means of production for all of the important/critical industries, but allowed the private sector a few somewhat trivial token ownership opportunities, I'd still say that's largely centrally planned. For instance, if a country allowed people to own their own small processing facility for some non-essential goods, or allowed a person to own a very small insignificant farm (while the government still owned all of the big ones), that would still fit the description.