Why Democratic Socialists aren't afraid to call themselves "Socialist" anymore

If the term “comrade” is part of a running joke on a site like BoingBoing that’s sympathetic to their policy goals they might want to drop it. For all the progress they’re making they’re still shooting themselves in the foot with this misplaced and misguided nostalgia.*

[* not that the DSA unique in that sense, as Corbyn continues to demonstrate to Labour’s misfortune in the UK]


Pretty sure most people don’t actually want collective ownership of the means of production. I think private enterprise is what makes things happen. Certainly we can put limits on capitalism, tho, so that we ensure that income inequality is kept from becoming too extreme, there are nice social benefits for all, and no one is being exploited.

Social Democracy, yes. Democratic socialism, no.


“…great things. Terrible, yes, but great.” —Ollivander


Da. I say “comrade” sarcastically, usually to interloper trolls.


Roger that.


Lol. Yes, not all great things are necessarily good. But mediocrity is no virtue, either.

What is the ratio of positive advances to humanity derived from a committee approval process vs those driven by an exceptional individual with resources to achieve a vision?

Let’s rein in capitalist activity that has net negative consequences to society, while encouraging those with net positive outcomes.

For example, do we really want to prohibit Elon Musk from being able to do his thing? Space X, Tesla, Solar City, Neuralink, and Boring are not compatible with socialism.

Where do you think this amazing global network of computers you used to post that comment came from?

I don’t think private enterprise should be destroyed entirely, but the notion that capitalism is responsible for all the major technological and social advances in our society is pure silliness.


That’s exactly why it irritates me that Americans can’t seem to figure out the difference between these concepts.


I find it very telling that lately, whenever these democratic socialists or socialists policies come up, the right-wing’s response is to say, “But what about Venezuela!?” Sometimes that’s literally their only response, the only thing they can come up with as an attempt at a rejoinder. To which the obvious response in turn is, “But what about the rest of the developed world?

There’s also the opposite; I was reading about the positive economic indicators in the US right now - everyone is spending more money, including the poor and middle class. People think things are going well, economically. Yet wages haven’t gone up. At all. So where’s the money coming from? Savings and debt, it turns out. If those people don’t foresee the bubble bursting and realize how precarious their lives are, they will soon.


Socialism doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Socialism.


31 posts were split to a new topic: Potent Musk

If you put construction of “the internet” to a vote of the workers in 1970, do you really think it would have ever been created. And the build out of the internet into the World Wide Web has largely been driven by private industry.

I’m in no way against pure research or R&D by the government. Not every advance has a payoff period that is tenable to private industry. I do not want “pure capitalism”. I am saying that collective ownership being the only mechanism for production of goods and service just isn’t going to give us the kind of innovation we need and expect.

Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Democratic Socialism is still socialism. Read their mission statement on their website!

I really think people in the USA clamoring for “socialism” want something like the Nordic Model of Social Democracy, which is definitely still capitalist at its base, but with lots is safeguards to promote equity.


I’m not disagreeing, but I’m also not understanding this line. Could you elaborate on why they’re not compatible?


“Socialism” doesn’t mean putting every single decision to popular vote.


How many times do I have to repeat the words “Workers’ Self-Management” before it finally gets through to some people?

ETA: further reading shows you have taken this into account but are not a believer. I disagree but don’t have the time to make a proper reply right now.


I mean, socialism worked so well in Albania, Algeria, Angola, Burma, Congo, Cuba, Ethiopia, Laos, Somalia, Vietnam and Yemen, lets totally implement an ideology that mostly brings misery and death (‘b-b-but, Norway!’) to the nations that practice it.

1 Like

No one is talking about introducing Marxism-Leninism, except you.


But flowers. :rose:


Note: The National Popular Vote bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

It simply requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.


It’s true that not all socialism ends in the tyranny of Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism or Castroism or Ba’athism or Chavezism or the Khmer Rouge—but most of it does. And no, Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t intend to set up gulags in Alaska. Most “democratic” socialists—the qualifier affixed to denote that they live in a democratic system and have no choice but to ask for votes—aren’t consciously or explicitly endorsing violence or tyranny. But when they adopt the term “socialism” and the ideas associated with it, they deserve to be treated with the kind of contempt and derision that all those adopting authoritarian philosophies deserve.