Democratic Socialism in the U.S.

[LiberalArkie]

[pat_k]

1. Socializing essentials -- kinda like the 1956 Republican Party Platform.

Socializing things that in a moral society are not commodities, but are rather basic building blocks required for a society and the people in it to have a shot at building a good life.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221341879

[31j20b3]

2. This is a list of Government programs intended to do social goods,

rather than positions of Democratic Socialism.

This list actually includes many of the programs Dwight Eisenhower ran on to win to terms in the 1950s. For example, things like veteran's benefits, and building the Interstate (aka National Defense) Highway System was a Republican agenda, funding the National Academy of Sciences (particularly around nuclear science) these were pushed by Eisenhower.

i don't say that to disparage these programs, although perhaps they produced ome hiccups along the way, these are all successful programs/institutions of the federal government

Looking at my world, Fire Departments provide a benefit to communities, but last time I looked, getting Fire Departments into rural America where they don't exist is NOT on the agenda of Democratic Socialists.

I could go on but I will leave that tasks to each individual with curiosities about the Social Democrats platform.

[pat_k]

3. Deleted

[lostincalifornia]

5. Thank-you.

[DenaliDemocrat]

4. This is a losing battle

And embracing this term is a dumb dumb dumb strategy. If you have to explain it - you’re losing.

[31j20b3]

6. I don't think stiffling progressive Social Democratic ideas is actually Democratic

The PEOPLE's Party, need all the good ideas it can get it's heads around

72.3 percent of people in Maine voted for Platner, roughly 20 percent voted for Mills.

The Dems NEED AND MUST PROMOTE ideas that built the numbers in Platner's primary win. Even if Planter is unsupportable as an alleged rapist.

Back in 2016 I was regularly told to stiffle myself... everything depended on winning... and that didn't work out. Dems LOST.

What we need are good ideas that help people with few negative side-effects It's still about winning, but not with exactly the same stuff that was marketed in the past decade.

We need ideas whose benefits reach out to care for my children and grand children after my remains are fertilizing wildflowers.

[DenaliDemocrat]

12. Yeah, you're like the kid that gets a Hindu

Swastika and runs around telling everyone WHY it’s not a REAL Nazi swastika.

Call yourself a progressive, a blue dog, or a fricking potato - but self proclaiming to be a “socialist - anything” is a Bad. Fucking. Idea.

[lapucelle]

8. I agree. What's wrong with saying "I'm a liberal Democrat who believes in regulation,

equal justice, protecting civil rights, robust public services, and a strong social safety net"?

[QueerDuck]

9. Exactly... if you're explaining and defining... you're losing!

Thank you!

[QueerDuck]

11. It goes something like this: "Well, I'm a socialist, but not a socialist-socialist..."

"Well, I’m a socialist, but not a socialist socialist. I believe in socialism, but also a heavily regulated, Nordic-style capitalism, which is actually more socialist than capitalist, except for the parts that aren't. So I call myself a Democratic Socialist. Now, technically, 'Democratic' is modifying 'Socialist' here, which makes me a type of socialist, not a type of Democrat, so my branding is already working against my electoral viability in a swing district. I realize using 'Democratic' as an adjective makes it sound like I'm prioritizing the socialism part (which I am, theoretically) but pragmatically, I’m a Democrat who just wants the government to own the means of data production. Not all production, obviously. Just the servers. But don't worry, I’m absolutely not a communist... unless we are talking about municipal broadband, health insurance, and AI data centers, which we should definitely nationalize tomorrow. But like, in a totally market-friendly, decentralized way that requires a 45-minute PowerPoint presentation to explain to a moderate voter at a supermarket."

...followed by...

"I don't want to overthrow the system; I just want to nationalize the tech sector, decommodify housing, and restructure the global economy. But in a gentle, non-threatening, suburb-approved way. See? It makes total sense if you just take the time to read this 80-page manifesto I brought with me."

... and finally...

"So... in conclusion... I'm not a communist, I’m just a guy who thinks Karl Marx had some solid points about cloud storage. Why is everyone walking away? I haven't even explained our stance on worker-owned bakeries yet!"

And, as our "explainer" finds out... he's changed NOBODY'S mind but strengthened the hostility toward our party with all the confusing explaining going on.

[lapucelle]

7. That's not socialism, democratic or otherwise. It's a mixed capitalist economy.

Providing services for the common good is a feature of mixed capitalism. Even Adam Smith advocated for tax-funded public services as a duty of the government.

I think it's a mistake going forward to discuss democratic socialism without acknowledging the fact that it is not synonymous with social democracy and that the DSA, having appropriated the democratic socialist brand, has it's own peculiar version of socialism with its own policy proposals which include abolishing police and abolishing prisons.

That pair of asses responsible for the Platner debacle (Daniel Moraff and Leanne Fan) are DSA members whose MO is recruiting socialists to run as Democrats. Their goal is a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party.

Daniel Moraff wrote this essay in 2017 for In These Times. It's been deleted on that website, but is still available on the DSA website.

Want to Elect Socialists? Run Them in Democratic Primaries
April 21, 2017

These people are not our friends.

[SocialDemocrat61]

10. That's Social Democracy.

Not Socialism.

[creeksneakers2]

13. Those things aren't socialism

Socialism is public ownership of the means of production.