# How Democrats should talk about socialism **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 3, 2019, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950 "2019-06-03T14:11:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/41 "2019-06-03T18:24:48Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > There is no one definition of socialism…it runs on a spectrum, much like most things. We’re not talking about legal definitions here. Exactly. And, pretty obviously, each of us is using a different definition in this thread. So, the OP’s plan, assuming I have it right, is to attempt to consolidate all of the definitions and historical aspects into HIS (not sure about Bernie…they may have some stuff to work out) definition of what it means. Like I said, good luck with that. And, like I said, what’s the point? Why continue to use it, even if what you mean is different than how it’s been used in the past, what it’s actual definition is, or what some evangelical Christian type in the deep south thinks it is? You aren’t going to be able to convince people that your definition is the real one, since that would confuse things even more…if we are talking about, China, say, being over 60% socialist, what does that mean in the context of the OP or Bernie et al claiming to be socialist? Or if we are talking historical examples of socialism failing in just about every country that’s tried it? We’d need a new term to define what that means too, and agree upon that as well, or we’d basically have people talking past each other and trying to look under each others kilts to see if there were ANY freaking Scotsmen at all… ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/42 "2019-06-03T18:28:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I agree – no guarantee my strategy will work. Could be a long slog, too. But in my experience more and more young people are using the word like I do (or like Bernie does), so it’s already working, at least partially – this is quite different than 10 years ago or before. Could be very effective in the long term, as it’s obviously been partially effective in the short and medium term. I think it’s going to backfire. It’s too easy to generate content such as memes that link socialism to failed socialist states. What happened in the USSR, pre-capitalist Chinese communism, Venezuela, etc is hard to ignore. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/43 "2019-06-03T18:30:10Z")
Simply saying socialism shouldn’t be feared is an incomplete argument. If your intention is to reduce the boogieman of socialism, then an explanation of what factors make more socialized activity appropriate, and what factors don’t, would make a lot more sense. Like, what about the military and interstate highway system lend themselves to be more appropriately socialized? What factors make our public education system function so poorly in certain areas? Just focusing on the label and saying, see, not so bad isn’t going to be very persuasive. Establish criteria, apply the criteria to real world examples, illustrate why the criteria makes sense and should be used. You know, actual substance. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/44 "2019-06-03T18:34:20Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I think it’s going to backfire. It’s too easy to generate content such as memes that link socialism to failed socialist states. What happened in the USSR, pre-capitalist Chinese communism, Venezuela, etc is hard to ignore. Hard to ignore, certainly. But there are plenty of “good news” socialism stories throughout western Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere. Those stories should be emphasized to demonstrate that socialism can be done well – only poorly managed socialism should be feared (just like poorly managed capitalism). > [@Bone](#): > > Simply saying socialism shouldn’t be feared is an incomplete argument. If your intention is to reduce the boogieman of socialism, then an explanation of what factors make more socialized activity appropriate, and what factors don’t, would make a lot more sense. Like, what about the military and interstate highway system lend themselves to be more appropriately socialized? What factors make our public education system function so poorly in certain areas? > > Just focusing on the label and saying, see, not so bad isn’t going to be very persuasive. Establish criteria, apply the criteria to real world examples, illustrate why the criteria makes sense and should be used. You know, actual substance. I agree – great comment, and thank you. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/45 "2019-06-03T18:40:44Z")
If socialism is merely public expenditures then the US is already the most socialist country. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/46 "2019-06-03T19:04:38Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If socialism is merely public expenditures then the US is already the most socialist country. This is false, unless you mean in absolute dollars. As a percent of GDP, we’re not even close: > **[General government - General government spending - OECD Data](https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm)** > > Find, compare and share OECD data by indicator. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/47 "2019-06-03T19:09:04Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > This is false, unless you mean in absolute dollars. As a percent of GDP, we’re not even close: > > [General government - General government spending - OECD Data](https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm) Of course I mean absolute dollars. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/48 "2019-06-03T19:13:06Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Of course I mean absolute dollars. Do you think this is useful measurement? If not, then why mention it? If so, please explain the usefulness. My view is that measuring anything in absolute dollars is almost always a fools game when comparing different sized countries. The US is the most \, just about. Who cares? Seems like a non-sequitur, but I’m willing to listen to your good-faith arguments against. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/49 "2019-06-03T19:31:09Z")
The Democrats should put forth their version of socialism as the alternative to the Republican version of [lemon socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_socialism). “Lemon socialism is a pejorative term for a form of government intervention in which government subsidies go to weak or failing firms (lemons; see Lemon law), with the effective result that the government (and thus the taxpayer) absorbs part or all of the recipient’s losses. The term derives from the conception that in socialism the government may nationalize a company’s profits while leaving the company to pay its own losses, while in lemon socialism the company is allowed to keep its profits but its losses are shifted to the taxpayer.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/50 "2019-06-03T19:44:05Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > The Democrats should put forth their version of socialism as the alternative to the Republican version of [lemon socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_socialism). > > “Lemon socialism is a pejorative term for a form of government intervention in which government subsidies go to weak or failing firms (lemons; see Lemon law), with the effective result that the government (and thus the taxpayer) absorbs part or all of the recipient’s losses. The term derives from the conception that in socialism the government may nationalize a company’s profits while leaving the company to pay its own losses, while in lemon socialism the company is allowed to keep its profits but its losses are shifted to the taxpayer.” Great! I haven’t heard this before and I love this idea. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/51 "2019-06-03T19:53:43Z")
It’s a choice between capitalism for the many and capitalism for the few. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/52 "2019-06-03T22:57:19Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I wouldn’t bother trying to make that case, but you do you…if you want to try and explain to folks that this or that is like socialism, or has it’s roots in socialism, well, there is nothing wrong with that. I think you’ll mainly be talking to a lot of folks looking at you blankly or not seeing the point, and I doubt any of it will make socialism seem ‘less scary’ as, well, actual socialism is a bit scary and pretty worthless as an actual system. Me, I’d focus on the stuff you actually want to do, and not worry about labels or where it’s roots came from, but that’s just me. I get in arguments with people about public school. They are against the very idea of them, because they view it as socialism. Pointing out what is already socialism in their lives will only turn them against it. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Great! I haven’t heard this before and I love this idea. So, iiandyiiii’s Lime Socialism it is. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/53 "2019-06-04T00:04:03Z")
I think some of you haven’t paid attention to what the socialists actually want, It’s not just social democracy - it’s real socialism. For example, the Democratic Socialists of America, of which AOC, Rashida Tlaib and others are members, have this right on their page: > [@](#): > > **What is Democratic Socialism?** > We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives. And what does that mean? > [@](#): > > We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. > > Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives. So… Democratic Socialists believe that Capitalism should go away, and that the economy should be organized into worker collectives (er, ‘co-ops’), except for the largest industries which should instead be nationalized and run by the government. I’m not sure how this is any different than what was promised in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, or other socialist hell-holes. They all promised socialism with democratic aspects. They all nationalized heavy industry and turned small and medium enterprises over to ‘the workers’. The only ‘innovation’ they offer is that they claim to not want central control, but distributed control by collectives, co-ops, and other ‘Democratic’ methods. Of course, they make exceptions for large industries, which would be centrally managed. This is not Swedish style social democracy. This is real socialism. > [@](#): > > **Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism?** > _In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations_, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. (italics mine) So, they would like to eliminate private corporations, but until they achieve that they’ll just use taxes and regulations to force them to do what they want, until they can find a way to get rid of them entirely. This is called centralized industrial policy, and it’s an aspect of real socialism. It’s also failed every time we’ve tried it. Again, this is not some fringe on the Democratic side. There are at least three people in Congress who are members of this group, and the ‘Green New Deal’ is shot through with their ideas. And almost every major Democratic candidate has signed on to it. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/54 "2019-06-04T01:19:16Z")
I went to [their website](https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/) and read the above quotes in context, and it sounds like you are misrepresenting what their goals are. For example, why did you not choose to quote this part, which entirely discredits what you are pretending that they believe in: “Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.” Sounds to me like they believe in a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Sounds pretty good to me. I might disagree with them regarding the correct mixture of the two, but I have little doubt that a mixture is the correct way to go, and these folks seem more sensible than the capitalism supporters on Foxnews who scream “socialism” and appear to have no idea what it means. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/55 "2019-06-04T03:50:04Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I went to [their website](https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/) and read the above quotes in context, and it sounds like you are misrepresenting what their goals are. For example, why did you not choose to quote this part, which entirely discredits what you are pretending that they believe in: > > “Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.” > > Sounds to me like they believe in a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Sounds pretty good to me. I might disagree with them regarding the correct mixture of the two, but I have little doubt that a mixture is the correct way to go, and these folks seem more sensible than the capitalism supporters on Foxnews who scream “socialism” and appear to have no idea what it means. So socialism for housing, mass transit, utilities, etc. and capitalism for Doritos and sneakers? What could go wrong? Look at California now to see what happens when government is overly pandering with regards to development. You have medieval conditions complete with open street sewers and bubonic plague in major cities. ---
**Author:** ![etasyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9f8e36/32.png) [@etasyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etasyde)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/56 "2019-06-04T05:21:00Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > So socialism for housing, mass transit, utilities, etc. and capitalism for Doritos and sneakers? What could go wrong? Look at California now to see what happens when government is overly pandering with regards to development. You have medieval conditions complete with open street sewers and bubonic plague in major cities. Are you… on something? Or, are you simply confused? You’re attacking one of the world’s most prosperous polities\* by virtually all metrics and trying to characterize it as some kind of third world country. Where are you getting your views from? 'Cause I’ve got to say, I live in what is comparatively a ghetto in southern California, and none of your claims exist even in the poorest areas, except perhaps in your head. \*Also a land area comparable to Japan, with a GDP that dwarfs most countries. Edit 2: No, you’ve entered the land of extreme fantasy… > **[Plague surveillance | CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/plague/maps/index.html)** > > Information on where plague cases occur in the United States, and how many have occurred in recent years. 5 cases in 2017 in ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/57 "2019-06-04T05:32:14Z")
> [@etasyde](#): > > Are you… on something? Or, are you simply confused? You’re attacking one of the world’s most prosperous polities\* by virtually all metrics and trying to characterize it as some kind of third world country. > > Where are you getting your views from? 'Cause I’ve got to say, I live in what is comparatively a ghetto in southern California, and none of your claims exist even in the poorest areas, except perhaps in your head. > > \*Also a land area comparable to Japan, with a GDP that dwarfs most countries. > > Edit 2: > No, you’ve entered the land of extreme fantasy… > [https://www.cdc.gov/plague/maps/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/plague/maps/index.html) > 5 cases in 2017 in ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. You do realize that inflated prices are a good portion of that GDP? And no I wouldn’t say 3rd world. But giant homeless camps and human feces everywhere in a major city is a damn embarrassment. Regardless of the aggregate sum of transactions for overpriced hamburgers and overpriced houses in CA. Good thing Silicon Valley is so good at apps. Here’s a poop map. [The problem with San Francisco poop maps - Curbed SF](https://sf.curbed.com/2019/4/23/18511865/sf-poop-human-waste-map-forbes-dpw-dog) ---
**Author:** ![etasyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9f8e36/32.png) [@etasyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etasyde)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/58 "2019-06-04T05:51:26Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > You do realize that inflated prices are a good portion of that GDP? And no I wouldn’t say 3rd world. “Inflated prices?” Look, man, whatever you’re having I want some. Outside of real estate (which for any _sane_ person suggests demand greater than supply, or in simple english _more people wanting to move in than to leave_), what are you claiming is significantly overpriced in California as compared to the rest of the country? With sources, mind you. > [@octopus](#): > > But giant homeless camps and human feces everywhere in a major city is a damn embarrassment. Regardless of the aggregate sum of transactions for overpriced hamburgers and overpriced houses in CA. Homelessness is a problem because supply exceeds demands, and rather than allow for the obvious solution (build more houses), people are more concerned with preserving their property value (that is, the scarcity of homes) rather than allowing for a socialist solution like state funded housing. In short, **insufficient _socialism_ is causing the problem you’re whinging about**. At least learn about the issues before you go ranting about them. (For those who are interested: [A dark side to the California dream: How the state Constitution makes affordable housing hard to build](https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-affordable-housing-constitution-20190203-story.html)) > [@](#): > > Good thing Silicon Valley is so good at apps. Here’s a poop map. [The problem with San Francisco poop maps - Curbed SF](https://sf.curbed.com/2019/4/23/18511865/sf-poop-human-waste-map-forbes-dpw-dog) That’s a cute map of **dog poop** (do you even READ your own sources?). Now be a good boy and provide a comparable, nationwide study to actually back up your claim that this is somehow unique to California. Mind you, you’ve covered _one_ City with an inordinately high population density due to terrain constrictions. Do make sure your sources demonstrate the impact of terrain. Can’t? Then get out of fantasy land and stop trying to create a ludicrous story out of absolute nonsense, or at least pass whatever your smoking so we can all have some. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/59 "2019-06-04T06:00:41Z")
> [@etasyde](#): > > “Inflated prices?” Look, man, whatever you’re having I want some. Outside of real estate (which for any _sane_ person suggests demand greater than supply, or in simple english _more people wanting to move in than to leave_), what are you claiming is significantly overpriced in California as compared to the rest of the country? With sources, mind you. > > Homelessness is a problem because supply exceeds demands, and rather than allow for the obvious solution (build more houses), people are more concerned with preserving their property value (that is, the scarcity of homes) rather than allowing for a socialist solution like state funded housing. > > In short, **insufficient _socialism_ is causing the problem you’re whinging about**. At least learn about the issues before you go ranting about them. > > (For those who are interested: [A dark side to the California dream: How the state Constitution makes affordable housing hard to build](https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-affordable-housing-constitution-20190203-story.html)) > > That’s a cute map of **dog poop** (do you even READ your own sources?). Now be a good boy and provide a comparable, nationwide study to actually back up your claim that this is somehow unique to California. Mind you, you’ve covered _one_ City with an inordinately high population density due to terrain constrictions. Do make sure your sources demonstrate the impact of terrain. > > Can’t? Then get out of fantasy land and stop trying to create a ludicrous story out of absolute nonsense, or at least pass whatever your smoking so we can all have some. Yeah, this thread is about socialism and someone brought up socialism with regards to housing. The state of California which has allowed supply to lag far behind demand for political reasons is an example of why you don’t want corrupt or self serving politicians in control of critical markets. All your personals insults aside, you have to admit that with the massive amount of land and money California has they shouldn’t be leading the nation in homelessness. Build some damn houses. You don’t even need socialized houses. You just need to start building. The DeBeers model of wealth creation is fine for luxury goods but it’s shameful applied to houses. ---
**Author:** ![etasyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9f8e36/32.png) [@etasyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etasyde)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950/60 "2019-06-04T06:19:29Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Yeah, this thread is about socialism and someone brought up socialism with regards to housing. The state of California which has allowed supply to lag far behind demand for political reasons is an example of why you don’t want corrupt or self serving politicians in control of critical markets Dude… **The politicians are \*not \*in control of the housing markets. The _local homeowners_ must vote on every project, and they are only interested in preserving the scarcity of the market so as to protect their personal interests (property values)**. The system was designed to _prevent_ socialism. Here, let me quote the article for you: > [@](#): > > The California Real Estate Assn., the forerunner of today’s California Assn. of Realtors, came up with a ballot initiative later that year to combat the Eureka decision and **require a public vote before public housing could be built.** > > Realtors argued that residents should be able to weigh in on such a project because it could create taxpayer debt. > > But the campaign, which coincided with the start of the Korean War, was about more than giving voters a say. **In the Realtors’ internal newsletter, Charles B. Shattuck, the organization’s legislative committee chairman, wrote that public housing threatened capitalism.** > [@](#): > > All your personals insults aside, These are not personal insults. I am genuinely confused by the way you take facts and make claims that are completely opposite to them. I don’t want to accuse you of being intentionally disingenuous, so I can only ask if you’re impaired at the moment. It happens, we all have a post or two when we weren’t on our A-game. I also don’t want to assume you’re just being lazy - you appear to have done _some_ research, but then your _own_ link questions its veracity (yeah, scroll past the first 2 paragraphs and it talks about how most of those “hits” are just dog poop). So in the spirit of fun (and a tongue-in-cheek reference to our marijuana legalization) I repeatedly asked if you were on something. > [@](#): > > you have to admit that with the massive amount of land and money California has they shouldn’t be leading the nation in homelessness. Build some damn houses. Can’t. The capitalists are preventing it, with the **stated reason** being the defense of capitalism. You’re right, _houses need to be built_! And the state wants to. But the capitalists _already_ rigged the system in their favor and have absolutely no reason to let those houses be built. > [@](#): > > You don’t even need socialized houses. You just need to start building. The DeBeers model of wealth creation is fine for luxury goods but it’s shameful applied to houses. Can’t. Capitalism says no. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democrats-should-talk-about-socialism/834950.md?page=4)