"Democratic Socialism is not Socialism"

Mordo · April 10, 2016, 02:11:24 PM

I hear this all the time from Bernie supporters and I have no idea how adding an adjective to socialism changes the fundamentals of it.

What exactly separates "Democratic" socialism from regular socialism?

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · April 10, 2016, 02:20:18 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 02:33:04 PM

A socialist who wants to employ socialist policy into democracy, rather than overturning it into something like communism.

Duh.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · April 10, 2016, 02:35:51 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mordo · April 10, 2016, 02:36:55 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 02:33:04 PM

A socialist who wants to employ socialist policy into democracy, rather than overturning it into something like communism.

Duh.

Why not just call it socialism then?

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · April 10, 2016, 02:40:46 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 02:56:58 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 10, 2016, 02:36:55 PM

Why not just call it socialism then?

If you intend on getting any recognition whatsoever as a presidential candidate, it would be prudent to dissociate yourself from any touchy political labels, such as "socialist," because they've been demonized so heavily.

"Democratic socialist" seems like a compromise. It attempts to placate those who may be off-put by the socialist label, while simultaneously establishing himself as an individual who still takes an active stance against corporatism.

It's a way of saying, "Yes, I'm a socialist, but I'm not that kind of socialist."

It's basically a PR move; politics 101.

More Than Mortal · April 10, 2016, 03:13:21 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 02:33:04 PM

A socialist who wants to employ socialist policy into democracy

This isn't what Bernie Sanders is, though. I have no idea why Bernie supporters keep making this distinction between non-democratic socialism and democratic socialism since they aren't either.

Sanders is just an old-school tax-and-spend liberal.

More Than Mortal · April 10, 2016, 03:15:05 PM

Quote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 10, 2016, 02:20:18 PM

Common ownership of the means of production is not advocated by Democratic Socialism

Yes. . . It is.

April 10, 2016, 03:44:56 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 10, 2016, 02:36:55 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 02:33:04 PM
A socialist who wants to employ socialist policy into democracy, rather than overturning it into something like communism.

Duh.
Why not just call it socialism then?

because that's too scary for the good ol boy type of voter

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 04:40:19 PM

I am an actual socialist and I can assure you that unless you believe in the abolition of private property, you are not a socialist: that's literally rule number one of socialism. Bernie Sanders is an embarrassment to socialism and his supporters are worse.

Advicating for social policies does not make you a socialist.

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM

Like, Lenin and Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.

April 10, 2016, 04:45:15 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM

Like, Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.

Fixed...

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 04:47:17 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:40:19 PM

I am an actual socialist and I can assure you that unless you believe in the abolition of private property, you are not a socialist: that's literally rule number one of socialism. Bernie Sanders is an embarrassment to socialism and his supporters are worse.

Advicating for social policies does not make you a socialist.

Yes, which is why he's a democratic socialist.

Do you want a cookie?

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 04:47:32 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 04:45:15 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM
Like, Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.
Fixed...

Oops, don't know how I got that wrong.

April 10, 2016, 04:49:11 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 04:47:17 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:40:19 PM
I am an actual socialist and I can assure you that unless you believe in the abolition of private property, you are not a socialist: that's literally rule number one of socialism. Bernie Sanders is an embarrassment to socialism and his supporters are worse.

Advicating for social policies does not make you a socialist.
Yes, which is why he's a democratic socialist.

Do you want a cookie?

Did you miss the whole point of this thread? Mordo doesn't know the difference between the two, this guy explained it.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 04:50:30 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 04:49:11 PM

Did you miss the whole point of this thread? Mordo doesn't know the difference between the two, this guy explained it.

It was explained already, so his post was redundant. He wanted his cookie.

DAS B00T x2 · April 10, 2016, 04:51:27 PM

Quote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 10, 2016, 02:20:18 PM

Instead of sharing resources for the common good, you share resources so everyone can get that iphone and comfy stable income.

It is a degenerate and hedonistic ideology that places comfort and materialism above any higher value. At least the communists have virtues.

I like this line.

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 04:52:48 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 04:47:17 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:40:19 PM
I am an actual socialist and I can assure you that unless you believe in the abolition of private property, you are not a socialist: that's literally rule number one of socialism. Bernie Sanders is an embarrassment to socialism and his supporters are worse.

Advicating for social policies does not make you a socialist.
Yes, which is why he's a democratic socialist.

Do you want a cookie?

Are you stupid or something? Are you trying to rile up something by just being blatantly rude?

There is no such thing as socialism that works under capitalism. The term Democratic Socialism is just plain disingenuous and an attention-getting alternative for Social Democrat.

Socialists hold that socialism is predominately democratic, so what point are you trying to make here other than that you think you know how adjectives work?

April 10, 2016, 04:54:21 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 04:50:30 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 04:49:11 PM
Did you miss the whole point of this thread? Mordo doesn't know the difference between the two, this guy explained it.
It was explained already, so his post was redundant. He wanted his cookie.

"I gave my explanation and thats set in stone no one else can give alternative explanations without being attention whores"

Get over yourself.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 04:58:52 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:52:48 PM

There is no such thing as socialism that works under capitalism.

If you're a myopic child who doesn't know how anything works, sure.

In America, we have a little thing called social security. It's actually one of the most beloved sanctions in the country.

And it's a socialist policy. It is inherently socialist by its nature.

BUT I THOGHT WE CUNLD'T HAVE SOCIALISM IN CAPITULAIM!?

Yes, you can. Get fucked over.

Quote

Socialists hold that socialism is predominately democratic, so what point are you trying to make here other than that you think you know how adjectives work?

I know exactly how adjectives work, thank you very much.

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 05:03:14 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 04:58:52 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:52:48 PM
There is no such thing as socialism that works under capitalism.
If you're a myopic child who doesn't know how anything works, sure.

In America, we have a little thing called social security. It's actually one of the most beloved sanctions in the country.

And it's a socialist policy. It is inherently socialist by its nature.

BUT I THOGHT WE CUNLD'T HAVE SOCIALISM IN CAPITULAIM!?

Yes, you can. Get fucked over.

Obviously you can't read either, fuckass, or you would've seen that I already said that social policies are not the same as socialism. Explain how, at all, social security is socialism: not how it's like it, or anything half-assed, explain how it IS socialism.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 05:05:26 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 05:03:14 PM

Obviously you can't read either, fuckass, or you would've seen that I already said that social policies are not the same as socialism.

Except that they are.

Quote

Explain how, at all, social security is socialism: not how it's like it, or anything half-assed, explain how it IS socialism.

Why would I do that when it's not what I said?

It's not socialism. It's socialist.

Who's the one who can't read here?

Oh. You.

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 05:08:00 PM

I see you arguing Semantics, but not explaining your points.

Explain how it is socialist.

There, very clearly, let me say it again, verbatim, Verbatim: Explain how it is socialist.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 05:13:12 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 05:08:00 PM

I see you arguing Semantics, but not explaining your points.

Explain how it is socialist.

There, very clearly, let me say it again, verbatim, Verbatim: Explain how it is socialist.

I'm so sick and tired of having to explain obvious shit to complete idiots. It's such a waste of my fucking time.

The government is literally making sure that the money is invested for the people receiving it, collectively. If the government just allowed individuals to take that money and invest it however they wanted, that wouldn't be socialistic. You would be the private owner of that wealth. Which would be capitalistic.

The way social security works is the exact opposite of that.

For fuck's sake.

So explain to me how that is NOT socialistic.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 05:21:05 PM

Other examples of socialist elements in America:

- Public K-12 education.
- Fire & Police departments.
- Public infrastructure (muh roads).
- The FDA.
- Vaccines and other health services.

The fact that you'd even say that capitalism and socialism cannot intermingle just shows complete ignorance, to put it lightly.

Bernie Sanders is as socialist as is socially acceptable in today's political climate. Wanting medicare for all, as well as eliminating college tuition, are two big examples of his own socialist agenda.

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 05:36:16 PM

Oh my god, you've actually been parroting this shit to other people, too?

When specific industries by individual capitalist, or any variation thereof, industries (railways and shit) becomes a trouble to the capitalist class, the state has to nationalize the industry so that it comes into ownership of the capitalist class as a whole. This makes it so that the control of the industry is less direct, fucko. Whenever liberals shits like you try to explain this shit and put it together in your limited brains, you always forget to put this shit in relation to the economic system as a whole and try to see why this stuff is nationalized.

It can only be 'socialist' if it was made to benefit the workers and not to benefit the capitalist class, but, guess what. Social security was made so that workers would stop dying from diseases and workplace accidents, something that was making all of their precious profit go away.

Public education was made so that there could be an educated workforce.

Fire and Police departments were made so that private property wouldn't burn down.

Everything has to be put into perspective with the current economic system as a whole, or else we'd obviously just call everything that ever was throughout history socialistic in some form or the other. Saying that something is a socialist policy implies that there is socialism put in place in some form or the other, whether it be by Dictatorship of the Proletariat or Vanguard Party, otherwise these systems just exist to benefit the capitalist class and are therefor not socialist, you huge raging fuckwitted mook-minded pile of uneducated shit.

More Than Mortal · April 10, 2016, 05:37:50 PM

Verbatim, you're not quite correct.

Welfare, like social security, is not a socialist policy. Socialism is about public ownership of the means of production; welfare is an irrelevancy. Are there examples of publicly owned capital and infrastructure? Yes, but again, this is not socialism. Socialism, by definition, is about collectively controlling the entire economy. If you want to refer to things like the police and roads as pockets of "socialism", then fine, it doesn't change the content of the discussion; but it's a disingenuous label to use.

Sanders is not a socialist, by any stretch of the imagination. The entire point of coining the term "democratic socialist" was to make a distinction between socialists who want a democratic polity and those who don't; Sanders does not fall into either camp. What he advocates is social democracy.

More Than Mortal · April 10, 2016, 05:43:26 PM

As an aside, it's probably worth noting socialists have historically not had a great relationship with welfare. The modern welfare state is invariably the result of either old conservative notions of hierarchy (or, in the case of Bismarck, conservatives trying to cut off socialism's appeal) or liberals like Beveridge and Keynes seeking to extend some form of social justice into the government's function.

More Than Mortal · April 10, 2016, 05:47:14 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 04:45:15 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM
Like, Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.
Fixed...

Not true.

Stalin's policies were a logical extension of Lenin's. The first Red Terror literally happened under Lenin, after the first assassination attempt.