Why do you think voters know that much about arcane technical definitions of economic theories? Which do you think is higher, the number of voters who have read Das Kapital, or the number who heard McCain say that Obama wants socialism? When McCain said that, do you think he meant that Obama wanted the government to control the means of production, and that Obama wanted there to be no private property? Or, is McCain using it wrong, too?
Let’s try to read the mind of McCain, since we can’t read that of voters. Which definition was McCain using, the one that I posted or more like the social democracy of, say, Denmark? If he meant the one that I posted, do you think he was being sincere and really believed that Obama wanted the US to be like Venezuela or Cuba?
Here are my answers, in case that helps:
I don’t think voters know that much about arcane tech definitions of econ theories.
I think more voters heard McCain than have read Das Kapital.
I think McCain was doing the same bullshit bait and switch – he meant social democracy but wanted to imply that Obama was for actual socialism.
I think McCain was using it wrong or doing the same bait and switch.
For my last question, he was either being disingenuous or lying, because he never really believed that Obama wanted to get rid of private property or nationalize all industries.
I’m not afraid. Sorry to disappoint. However, I don’t appreciate your crack about sensing fear at all and I think it doesn’t nothing for this conversation except poison the well. I’m trying to debate you honestly and you’re throwing ridiculous generalizations around.
I have affectionate nostalgia for old fashioned lefty culture. Tom Joad, the Weavers, “Red Diaper Babies”. The charmingly naive notion that working class Germans would not go to war with working class Frenchies. “Socialism” belongs with that, it is too muddled with history to have a clear and distinct definition. Any group of lefties either ignore the word or argue about what it precisely means, righties have no such problem, they just know its Bad.
I remember when I first read that all of Scandinavia would collapse into smoking ruin in a matter of months. Because, as everybody knows, socialism is impossible. Fifty years, now?
OK, lets accept that, and the result is that whatever they are doing isn’t socialism. Because they are mostly doing pretty well. We want more justice and equality, in a general sense and a specific emphasis on material well being. We on the conservative wing of the extreme left prefer a method of compromise and negotiation. By a happy coincidence, these are precisely the engines of an egalitarian democracy. Lucky us, huh?
So, we enter negotiations, we start with demanding English as a second language programs for gay whales, we hoot, holler and demand. Then we grudgingly compromise for more education and medicine. We, of course, promise never to ask for anything else ever again, so help us Alinsky. And set immediately to the task of doing exactly that. Everybody gets something, nobody wins. Everybody is grumpy but nobody dies.
Trouble is, of course, that it is a tedious and tiresome course. Anything that demands patience is gonna be a tough sell. We can call it whatever you like, so long as you don’t pretend you are defining something. But to continue to insist that its the same thing as it ever was, as if Sweden never happened is like defining modern medicine in terms of mud and leeches.
Most people see capitalism and socialism as competing forces. They pick sides and hope for the other system to be irrevocably destroyed. But let’s be honest. The great American middle class was built on programs that, fairly speaking, should be termed “socialistic”. (At least that what Republicans called every darned one of them at the time they were first under consideration.) I don’t see them as competing, I view them as complementary. Capitalism to generate wealth (which it does quite well). Socialism to take the rough edges off. Like two great wolves keeping each other at bay.
Sanders is an avowed Socialist. Can you point me to his position statements that match your definition of socialism?
When Democrats these days think of socialism, they are thinking of what in Europe are Social Democratic positions. If for partisan reasons you don’t want to admit that the word means something different in the US today, that’s your problem.
And to repeat what others have said over and over, calling social democratic policies socialist just improves the reputation of the term socialist. You can blame the right for that.
Just to be clear, I am not a “socialist”. I don’t want people like Maduro or Ergodan or Putin trying to outsmart the market -they will fail (miserably) every freaking time. But l’aissez faire economics has also failed. It failed in the early 1900s, and it will fail for us again. And the shit part about it is that this country will be left to actually consider socialism as an alternative to capitalism, because they will be comparing the ideals of imagined socialism to the realities of dark capitalism. The optimal solution is to fix capitalism so that it has social benefits.