The thing is, they aren’t socialist programs…they are socialistic. Real, actual socialism means specific things (i.e. command economy, nationalization of industry, limitation or ablution of private property, etc etc). Having one aspect of something doesn’t make it that thing unless it has all or at least a bunch more aspects.
As to Bernie, he could call himself an Oompa Loompa for all I care…doesn’t actually make him one. Just because he is clueless about what the term actually means doesn’t mean I or anyone else has to play along.
Ahh, semantics! Based on usage (and usage = definition), “socialism” and “socialist” can mean multiple things. So you’re right and I’m right and Bernie’s right, I believe. The words can encompass each of these usages and definitions. Since it seems unlikely that the term will be discarded entirely, I think the Democrats ought to do their best to highlight the “friendly” definitions of these words.
Some components controlled by the state? That describes every government in history to some degree. Most people aren’t against a role for government. Quite a few are against a government that panders to the unproductive to such a degree that incentives for productivity are destroyed.
Only if you are using a totally different definition, which apparently you (and Bernie) are. So…words don’t mean anything, or mean what you want! Ok, fine. Hard to have a debate though if we can’t agree on the terms being used.
Words do indeed mean what “we” want – we being users of these words. If millions of people are using “socialism” and “socialist” the way I do, or the way Bernie does, then that’s a real and accurate definition of the word, on top of the definitions you use (that millions of others also use). This is just how language works!
So, in your definition, what does ‘you’ and ‘want’ mean here? I wasn’t aware that the definition of socialism changes with the country, or that there is a special ‘French socialism’ that is different than any other ‘socialism’. Oh, and what does ‘Oh’ mean in this context? I mean, obviously words don’t mean anything, there aren’t any agreed upon definitions of terms, so I’m trying to parse this out. I THINK I know what ‘you’ and ‘more of a’ means, so I won’t ask those…
Which of these “socialist” efforts are you referring to? Which would you care to discontinue because their government control makes them “socialist?”
[ul]
[li]The US military[/li][li]The Interstate Highway System[/li][li]Your local police and fire departments[/li][li]Your state and local criminal justice systems[/li][li]US National Parks[/li][li]Your local forest preserves[/li][li]Your local school districts[/li][li]Your state universities[/li][/ul]
Dismissing initiatives and proposals because they’re “socialist” only makes sense if you’re an absolute libertarian – or if the word has been appropriated by one party to taint anything proposed by the other party.
No one (or virtually no one) is in favor of destroying incentives for productivity – the debate is about the best way to manage those incentives and balance the needs of providing services to people. Government health care obviously can work and be successful (even in the US!) – as an active duty Navy officer I received hassle-free top-notch government health care. That doesn’t mean it’s easy, but it means that it’s not necessarily an “incentive destroying” proposition.
Cool, good luck with that. Hope you can get everyone to agree on what the terms mean, otherwise you are just going to be talking past each other, you (and Bernie) being puzzled why some are repelled by the term ‘socialism’ and they thinking you (and he) are something they aren’t or advocating for things they don’t actually advocate for. Should make for some funny Lewis Carroll moments…
But this is what I’m trying to address! I recognize that tons of Americans have a problem with the notion of “socialism” in their heads, and I’m proposing a rhetorical strategy for Democrats to deal with that.
By changing the definition of socialism. And presumably getting people to forget all of the history of socialism. Sure, it’s possible to do that given enough time. I’m not seeing the point of holding onto the term, though, since it has all that baggage (rightfully so) and means specific things that you don’t want or associate with. Is it just to show you can rehabilitate the term just as a fuck you to the Republicans? I am not seeing the point.
Right. Would you say the VA is efficient? I know for a fact that it isn’t. That’s government run healthcare yet the labor unions are far too powerful and destroy efficiency. And when the government runs a whole industry it has a monopoly and how is it going to improve with no competition?
Active duty military is a whole different scenario. When you can directly order people to get stuff done and they don’t have a labor union to whine to you can get stuff done. That said, the military is definitely not a model of cost savings or efficiency.
Now, would I be in favor of national expansion of health coverage with vouchers or something? Sure. I’d also like price and procedure transparency.
I can get behind an expansion of government services, regardless of the label, if done right and not merely done to pander to economically ignorant voters.
The definition is already “changed”. Millions of Americans are already using the words the way I do, and the way Bernie does (and probabyl in other ways too). Since I don’t think there’s any chance of the word being eliminated, I think demonstrating the “new” definition could be effective. Certainly better than nothing, or better than saying that those millions of Americans who use it like I do (or Bernie does) are stupid and wrong.
Obviously the government can be inefficient too (as can private industry, as it currently is in delivering health care to poor folks). Military health care demonstrates that it can be very effective in some circumstances. But I didn’t mean for this to be a debate about health care – just for a discussion of rhetorical strategy for the Democrats.
And 10’s of millions don’t use or think of the term that way. And 10’s of millions use the original meaning, which you can Google up, and know the history of it and how it’s worked out. And 10’s more millions use it equally wrongly to mean all sorts of other horseshit. So, again, what’s the point of trying to shift the definition to be the one you want AND get rid of all the baggage associated with it? Seems like a long term project with little gain and lots of pain, and no guarantee it will even work.
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 am not seeing the point.