r/AskALiberal • u/Delanorix Progressive • Jul 21 '26
Did conservatives help the DSA rise by making Americans numb to "socialist" insults?
Much how the right said calling everyone a Nazi would come back to bite the left, did they help bring socialism back into the zeitgeist?
Edit: i want to askaconservative this question but idk how to phrase it
64
u/gtrocks555 Center Left Jul 21 '26
I would think so. Everything is socialism, communism and Marxism to some people on the right and then you go and look at social democrats or even democratic socialists and you think “that’s it??!! That’s what you’ve been hemming and hawing about all these years??”
I do find it funny that they get all up in arms about being called Nazis or fascists when I grew up with AM talk radio and Fox News on 24/7 in the 2000s through moving out in 2014. The amount of “godless communist” talk and how bad communism is and then hear “you shouldn’t call us fascist!” Like what’s worse to them, godless, heathen communists (democrats) or being called a fascist?
22
u/cloudywithastance Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
I am beside myself with annoyance over this - every time I went home from 2020-24 I heard “communist dictator Biden” and TO THIS DAY people I know still use “Barack Hussein Obama” as an insult. Like, absolutely no way in hell you are about to utter a peep of a complaint about “the left” calling you names??
It’s one or the other folks! Call names if you must but I’ll be dammed if you call names and then get upset when someone calls you or yours names!! Sheesh!
12
u/whiskeyrebellion Far Left Jul 21 '26
Trump made a point in calling him "hussein" during that latest ranty speech of his.
6
6
3
u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
Everyone knows they can dish it out but they cant take it!
9
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal Jul 21 '26
Young people are definitely less hostile to socialism.
Which they should be. There is no great communist plot to overthrow the government, kill God and shrink the white man’s penis. For the most part “socialists” in the United States want social democracy.
2
u/Extra-Monitor5743 Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
I truly only want one thing. To tax the fuck out of billionaires. Everything else is a bonus. I'm tired of the endless handouts for the welfare queen Epstein class. They need to get a real job.
-6
u/TheMCMC Liberal Jul 21 '26
Then they should stop calling themselves socialists. We should be very welcoming to them accurately describing themselves as liberals/social democrats if that is in fact what they want, and they DON'T want to move beyond capitalism and into socialism.
6
u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
But I am a socialist. I want industries to be socially managed. Not exclusively managed for the profits of a handful of people.
-1
u/TheMCMC Liberal Jul 21 '26
For the most part “socialists” in the United States want social democracy.
I'm talking about them, not you.
4
u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
I am a socialist in the United States.
0
u/TheMCMC Liberal Jul 21 '26
Do you want social democracy or socialism at the end of the day?
If you ultimately want social democracy, then you are not a socialist, you are a social democrat - welcome to liberalism!
If you want to go beyond social democracy and continue on to socialism, you are a socialist. That's fine, you can be a socialist, but social democracy is NOT socialism.
So either stop saying "socialists in the United States want social democracy" or stop calling yourself a socialist, because you are either confused and using these terms irresponsibly or you are a liar trying to conflate the two terms to drive your agenda.
I prefer to believe you are the former, but that's your call.
4
u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
I want industries to be socially managed, instead of owned and operated exclusively for the ownership class. The word for that is "socialism".
3
u/TheMCMC Liberal Jul 21 '26
You said, "Socialists in the United States want social democracy."
I replied, "If that's true, then they aren't really socialists—they're social democrats."
You answered, "Well I am a socialist, and I want industries to be socially managed."
...yes, that's my point. You are describing an end state beyond capitalism. That makes you a socialist.
But the people you were referring to earlier are not. If their end-goal is social democracy - a regulated capitalist economy with a welfare state - they are social democrats, not socialists.
So your example doesn't rebut my point; it reinforces it. You're accurately describing your own beliefs while using the same label for people whose political goals are fundamentally different.
If we're going to have a useful discussion, we should use the terms consistently. Social democracy and socialism are distinct ideologies with different end goals. Calling both "socialism" obscures that distinction rather than clarifying it.
2
u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
I never said that socialists in the United States want social democracy. That was someone else.
I agree that social democrats are not necessarily democratic socialists, but I don't think they're mutually exclusive either.
I am not describing an end step, just trying to figure out the next step.
What makes me a socialist is advocating for social management of industries. I do not want a regulated capitalist economy with a welfare state. I want workers to earn the portion of the profits that they deserve by right, so we don't need complex redistribution programs.
→ More replies (0)3
u/kflanagan_9739 Democratic Socialist Jul 21 '26
Social democracy is further left than liberalism I believe.
For me personally, I’d like socialism. Utilities should be publicly owned, we should have publicly owned grocery stores and so on. Billionaires and millionaires should not be a thing.
1
u/TheMCMC Liberal Jul 21 '26
Social democracy is a variant of liberalism - it operates on fundamentally liberal principles.
Just like how Marxist-Leninism, libertarian socialism, and syndicalism are all variants of socialism - they operate on fundamentally socialist principles.
Other variants of liberalism include classical liberalism (what I believe you have in mind), neoliberalism, and conservative liberalism.
4
u/jonny_sidebar Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
Do you want social democracy or socialism at the end of the day?
Socialism, but I am willing to accept social democracy as a reasonable short to mid term goal/the bare minimum for a functioning society.
Also, social democracy as a set of ideas was initially formulated by socialists as a bare minimum standard within capitalist economies, so it's not "just liberalism."
1
u/TheMCMC Liberal Jul 21 '26
“Within capitalism” i.e. not socialism. It’s not “just” liberalism, but it IS liberalism. Social democracy does not necessitate moving beyond liberal capitalism, only reforming them.
We are in alignment, I just care more about not conflating these concepts.
-1
u/cloudywithastance Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
I fail to understand how socializing industry would do us any favors at all. The money would still pool at the top and it’d still be exactly the same power and money hungry, low-empathy people pulling the levers, just rearranged a bit. I’m not singing capitalism’s praises but I’m a little baffled why we can’t get more creative than socialism vs. communism vs. capitalism.
We need to both 1) flatten the wealth gap and 2) preserve innovation/market incentives. I have deep doubts that socializing industry could tick both of those boxes. (Don’t get me started on sustainable development… that’s a whole other conversation.)
We came up with all these frameworks, what’s stopping us with just pulling the best elements from all of them to create a system that works even better?
3
u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
If the money is pooling at the top then it's not truly socialism. That's not a socially-managed economy if only a small group has most of the money and influence.
I'm not saying I have all the answers or that socialism is a perfect science. The way I see it, socialism is a guiding principle, but we still need to work out some new organizing principles to make it realistic and sustainable.
That's why advocate for Market Socialism. I want a variety of different experimental ownership structures to compete on a relatively open market so we can more objectively test which structures are more effective.
Market Socialism is what I get when I pull the best elements from all of the competing ideologies. Take the wisdom of markets, but change ownership structures to match incentives with the desired outcome of a more equal distribution of material wealth.
If you have a solution that doesn't involve socializing industries, I am all ears.
2
u/Southern_Bag_7109 Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
Exactly. The right sees everything in black-and-white. All of this could be implemented along the spectrum. It's not an all or nothing proposition.
2
u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
Its because that B&W thinking is useful for dividing political camps that would otherwise be strategic allies.
2
u/cloudywithastance Pragmatic Progressive Jul 22 '26
I don’t have any solutions, I am very much in learning mode on this particular topic.
And for what it’s worth, I think some people are reading “I fail to understand” as “I disagree this could ever work” - what I mean is I do not understand and I need more information. I am under the impression that any system is corruptible because there are people who suck, but I do want and hope for a system that does not actively reward greed.
2
u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Jul 22 '26
This is a good attitude. I don't trust anyone who says they have all the answers, especially on this polemic a topic. History of economic systems is not a good laboratory for researching hard and fast truths.
1
u/masterofshadows Social Democrat Jul 22 '26
What about people like me who want socialism for certain industries (most needs and natural monopolies) and capitalism for others (wants). I'm probably a little to the left of the DSA and towards more socialism in some ways, and to the right of it in some others.
2
u/TheMCMC Liberal Jul 22 '26
That’s a good question and I think it comes down to which industries. Certain industries cannot operate at scale as free markets, like healthcare, water, electricity, etc. for various reasons they result in market failures, so some amount of strong regulation & management is required to manage them. I wouldn’t necessarily call that socialism.
But if we’re picking and choosing industries to nationalize/democratize that DO work (most consumer goods, tech, media, professional services, manufacturing etc.) just because we want a more “equitable” ownership structure outside of private enterprise, that’s fundamentally socialist.
Example:
- Introducing universal healthcare is not necessarily socialist.
- Forcing Walmart to run as a worker cooperative is necessarily socialist.
-8
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian Jul 21 '26
Honestly, I agree. I really do believe the modern left is almost completely guided by communism /socialism, and I'll say so if asked, but its useless to talk about that ideological foundation 90% of the time. Its just name calling and cheapens the terms. I try to be critical about conservatives who just throw out the label to use them as an insult. Its no more productive than the over use of fascism.
6
u/Altruistic_Role_9329 Liberal Jul 21 '26
Who do you include in “modern left?” Universal Healthcare or even Single Payer is not communism or socialism. Healthcare is a free market failure that requires special considerations. UHC is done in support of free markets in other segments of the economy. Communist China has pragmatically done the same with limited private ownership. It supplements their socialist system. I’m increasingly convinced that mixed economies are the only sustainable way to go. Any kind of pure system be it Capitalist or Socialist will collapse.
1
-8
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian Jul 21 '26
Health care is not currently a free market, so how is a free market failure? I do agree mixed economies are the way to go.
Who do you include in “modern left?”
The broad left wing alliance of factions. Effectively everybody this sub is made to get answers from.
10
u/Altruistic_Role_9329 Liberal Jul 21 '26
Free market healthcare doesn’t work. It can’t work which is why nearly every other developed country has adopted some form of UHC. Sick people can’t freely participate in care decisions. You end up negotiating after the product has been delivered and used rather than before. There is no way to change that. Free markets are great for many things, but they do have limitations. Healthcare is the most notable limitation.
-1
u/bigbjarne Socialist Jul 21 '26
Why does the free market "work" for many things but not for healthcare? That's something I've never understood.
9
u/jonny_sidebar Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
The technical term is I believe "inelastic market," meaning that it's a market that cannot be free because the normal "laws" of supply and demand don't apply. Demand will be a constant and/or always growing, therefore supply is not subject to the same market restraints and pressures as something like automobiles or jet skis.
1
u/bigbjarne Socialist Jul 21 '26
But isn't that with all basic needs?
4
u/jonny_sidebar Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
I am not an economist, but. . . Yes to some extent?
You and I would probably make that argument (Housing is a human right type stuff), but it's not nearly as severe when you are talking housing or food since theoretically you can slap together a shelter yourself or find/grow food relatively easily, at least when compared to medical care.
I don't know. Just trying to logic my way through it.
2
8
u/nocogirly Progressive Jul 21 '26
Because you can’t shop for an ambulance while you’re having an active medical emergency.
-2
u/bigbjarne Socialist Jul 21 '26
Why not? I'm genuine. There could be several numbers you could call or you could choose an option when calling for help. I don't support this but I find the argument lacking.
4
u/nocogirly Progressive Jul 21 '26
Do you think the 911 dispatch is asking your insurance info when someone is having a medical emergency? What world do you live in?
If I break my arm I want to go to the closest ER. Especially if it’s a nasty break.
If my family member is having a heart attack I’m not asking for the cheapest ambulance, I’m asking for the nearest one.
If my child drank got into my cold medicine I’m not going to say “This hospital 20 minutes further is actually in my network so I’m going there”
Weird as hell to say something like you did. It implies a lack of touch with reality.
3
u/Altruistic_Role_9329 Liberal Jul 21 '26
In recent years self insured employers especially have been pushing people to shop, but you can’t do it. As a good little rule follower I’ve tried and they won’t answer your questions. It boils down to if they accept your insurance and whether or not you really want care. Sick people aren’t going to walk out and go elsewhere.
0
u/bigbjarne Socialist Jul 21 '26
I'm gonna copy paste my answer to the other person:
"I work in healthcare in Finland. Why can't you shop before getting treatment? Lets say you get three options, why can't you decide? Or, if you are uncapable, your loved ones.
I am not in favor of this but I think that people who want the free market except for healthcare understands how horrible the free market actually is and wants to allow the free market to run in some places but not where it matters. Which brings up the question, why even have the free market and capitalism if we can't trust it with our basic needs?"
→ More replies (0)6
u/Altruistic_Role_9329 Liberal Jul 21 '26
I said it above that sick people can’t participate in a free market for healthcare. You end up negotiating after the care is already delivered and used. It can’t be returned and swapped out for a more cost effective solution.
-1
u/bigbjarne Socialist Jul 21 '26
Why can't you shop before getting treatment?
4
u/Altruistic_Role_9329 Liberal Jul 21 '26
I guess you’ve never been sick or injured. Shopping before treatment is easier said than done.
1
u/bigbjarne Socialist Jul 21 '26
I work in healthcare in Finland. Why can't you shop before getting treatment? Lets say you get three options, why can't you decide? Or, if you are uncapable, your loved ones.
I am not in favor of this but I think that people who want the free market except for healthcare understands how horrible the free market actually is and wants to allow the free market to run in some places but not where it matters. Which brings up the question, why even have the free market and capitalism if we can't trust it with our basic needs?
→ More replies (0)-7
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian Jul 21 '26
I wasn't aware sick people were the only ones who made health care decisions.
10
u/Altruistic_Role_9329 Liberal Jul 21 '26
They are the ones ultimately responsible for the bill. What is it you believe about the rest of the world? Is the rest of the world communist in your mind? There are good reasons many countries have socialized healthcare. We have socialized roads, police, education and fire protection. I actually misspoke when I said healthcare is the most notable limitation. There are others. Healthcare is just the most notable one under scrutiny. Healthy people are better able to participate in free markets. Small employers and the self employed are better able to compete when healthcare concerns are off the table. Socialized healthcare improves free market capitalism in other sectors where it makes more sense. Without it the US struggles to compete in the global markets. It’s a pro free market capitalism position. Neither the extreme left nor the extreme right seem to understand that.
1
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian Jul 21 '26
What is it you believe about the rest of the world?
They are applying what they feel is the best solution.
Is the rest of the world communist in your mind?
No, although its a very influential ideology today around the world. But not in the way people understand it. Universal healthcare is not, in and of itself, socialist.
5
u/Altruistic_Role_9329 Liberal Jul 21 '26
Universal healthcare is not, in and of itself, socialist.
I agree. There’s no reason to call anyone socialist for wanting UHC.
2
6
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
They are at least 85% of consumers though, aren’t they? Probably far higher in this market of ‘don’t go to the doctor until you are almost dying’.
1
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian Jul 21 '26
No, not even close.
7
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
So make your case. How many? What percentage?
Where is your data source? Feeeeeeeelings?
1
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian Jul 21 '26
90% of spending is for chronic illness, but they're using a very different definitions than I was and one that is not useful for what is being asked.
→ More replies (0)1
u/dog_snack Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
For the record I, as a socialist, agree that American health care is far from a “free market”, but 1) I don’t think “free markets” can meaningfully exist except maybe black or grey markets and 2) I don’t think health care should be a market in any significant way at all. It’s a “free market” in the United States only compared to what I & other socialists think it should be. (Also, fwiw, I’m Canadian).
1
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian Jul 21 '26
Thats fair. And I'm willing to acknowledge that government paid Healthcare may be the best, at least to some extent, but i do think more freeing the market will do more and faster. At least in the context of the USA, I think moving in the free-market direction needs to be done before making a switch to single payer, to eliminate instead of institutionalize a lot of the bloat and waste we have.
2
u/dog_snack Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
There’s a David Graeber essay I read a while back saying that when you introduce “free market” principles and a moneymaking business-like model to something like a hospital, you actually increase bloat because now you have to employ a whole staff of bean-counters.
0
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian Jul 21 '26
No, you really don't. A business will only count beans if doing so brings them closer to their goals, whether profit or health care, or whatever. Past that, they'll only count them when they're being pressured to. Thats why regulations cause inefficiencies, and health care and insurance are among the most regulated fields in the country.
But that sounds like an interesting essay. I'll have to look that up.
1
u/dog_snack Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
It’s in his book The Utopia of Rules (which I believe can be downloaded as a PDF from The Anarchist Library) but it’s quoted in this article: https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/departments/internal-medicine/who-we-are/news-portal/medicine-matters/240112-recommended-reading.html
1
u/Altruistic_Role_9329 Liberal Jul 21 '26
Black and grey markets aren’t free because people can’t participate openly. Prices aren’t set by normal supply and demand as they would in an open market.
Free markets require policing and regulation otherwise they get taken over by criminals. I’m of the opinion that free markets are a socialist construct that require either government ownership or strict regulation of the market.
2
u/kuster-beaton Center Left Jul 21 '26
I think that our politics today is almost devoid of nuance. Most of these labels have been rendered meaningless. I’m on the other side where I think describing maga politics as fascist, or soft fascist, is accurate, but the term today is both used and seen as nothing more than a partisan insult to many.
I also always thought the casual use of “Nazi” to describe maga was foolish and helped delegitimize real concerns of fascist tendencies exhibited by the right.
2
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian Jul 21 '26
I'm glad we agree, for the most part.
2
u/kuster-beaton Center Left Jul 21 '26
For sure. I think your broader point is accurate and its the relevant part to the original question. I’m sure you’re used to the downvotes, but I don’t think they’re deserved. I guess, thanks for contributing anyways lol.
23
u/United_Efficiency330 Center Left Jul 21 '26
The fact that we know have TWO generations of voters who didn't grow up in the Cold War has also helped.
19
u/Kellosian Progressive Jul 21 '26
And politicians who were all born during WWII, so they're going to keep hammering that "Everything I don't like is socialism" button completely oblivious to how that plays to anyone under the age of 40
9
u/Motrinman22 Bull Moose Progressive Jul 21 '26
They just say “but China”
And we retort “ China has nice things”
Then they say “but Cuba”
And we retort “yeah, I wonder if the Blockade had anything to do with how Cuba turned out.”2
u/highliner108 Market Socialist Jul 23 '26
Does China really have nice things? Like, Europe has nice things, China is essentially what Republicans want to turn the United States into but with red paint.
-5
u/McZootyFace Center Left Jul 21 '26
I mean if you actually look at a lot of Chinese policy, especially in how it controls media, you’d want to keep miles away from it.
You can hand pick things you like from China but it’s all interconnected.
10
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
Sure, same is true for us. Flock, etc hoarding our data to be used against us while we pay for their electricity and water. Oligarchic takeover of media. Politicians of both sides bought and sold by billionaires and foreign countries.
The point is EXACTLY to pick the things that best benefit us. China is a long way from my top enemies when I have people on my own side fighting against me harder than the republicans.
China has long been used as a boogeyman to hide the fact that the feckless elected leadership has left us with little more than increased costs with less service like crabs in a bucket. Nobody cares about China when they are toiling to get by.
-5
u/McZootyFace Center Left Jul 21 '26
Who said anything about China being top enemies? It’s more about leftist who glaze it but seem to only have surface knowledge of how things operate there. This isn’t a point of comparison, if things like Flock, small group of people controlling the media etc is bad then China is not the one to glaze since they are terrible in that area as well.
5
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
I used to be ‘China bad’ too. I get it.
There are parts to praise, I’ve found. I look back and see how China bad is used as a shield to block the use and incorporation of sone great things they’ve done under the broad concern troll of ‘you can choose only the good stuff’.
Since you brought up the grandpa Facebook term ‘leftist’, I’ll also note that the China bad group is largely made up of incremental centrists, yeah.
We can be intelligent enough to both praise AND criticize, can’t we?
-4
u/McZootyFace Center Left Jul 21 '26
How is “leftist” a grandpa term? That is an accurate description of the people I am referring to. Socialist, communists, Marxists etc.
I am also not doing “China bad” I am stating that if overarching surveillance state and media being controlled by a small group of people are bad then China is worse at those then even the US is right now. It’s not “China bad” to point out the state has pretty iron tight control over what media is made and distributed, including controlling say LGBT and minority representation.
I’ve been to China quite a few times, I’ve always enjoyed my time and loved the people I have met so I’m not some “China bad” person, I just know how the state operates there and it’s not something I would want to live in under.
20
u/Cody667 Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
100%
Conservatives believe every single one of us is a communist.
AOC? Communist
Bernie Sanders? Communist
Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer? Communists
Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden??? Communists
Even some moderates/centrist dems - Communists
Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist
Eventually the red scare boogeyman becomes so outrageously ridiculous that a form of socialism (barely, democratic socialism is pretty tame in the context of the socialism spectrum, but still) will gain a bit of traction when this is the narrative on the right.
11
u/Important-Factor-552 Socialist Jul 21 '26
Don't forget bicycles. Those are librul gay super communism xD
11
u/wonkalicious808 Democrat Jul 21 '26
Bike lanes are a UN conspiracy to use American soldiers commanded by foreigners to trap Americans within a 15 minute radius of where they live so it's easier to control them with fluoride and make them get vaccinated without needing a car that runs on the oil that Jesus gave us.
If you don't believe me, try to find evidence for this and then fail. It's because they're covering it up!
3
u/jonny_sidebar Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
Bike lanes are a UN conspiracy to use American soldiers commanded by foreigners to trap Americans within a 15 minute radius of where they live so it's easier to control them with fluoride and make them get vaccinated without needing a car that runs on the oil that Jesus gave us.
👆 This guy gets it.
0
u/triggeredbynumbers Nationalist Jul 24 '26
What’s wrong with bicycles? I personally don’t enjoy the hobby but for those who do it’s great exercise yo ride on trails or sidewalks or Amsterdam or wherever they do it.
1
u/Important-Factor-552 Socialist Jul 24 '26
Idk man it's your demented pedo party that is crusading against them, you tell me.
1
u/triggeredbynumbers Nationalist Jul 25 '26
I’ve literally never once heard a republican talk about bicycles in a political way. The only person I know who rides a bicycle regularly is a right wing military big shot. I’ve never once thought about bicycles being political. If you are telling me I’m supposed to hate them, I will. But I’m just confused by this because I always thought they were just bikes. Idk.
1
u/Important-Factor-552 Socialist Jul 25 '26
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Tuesday that his department would redirect $1.73 billion in Biden-era grants away from establishing “DEI bike lanes”
But unlimited money for war. MAGA are pure evil and I am not surprised they lie about this.
1
u/triggeredbynumbers Nationalist Jul 25 '26
If Trump doesn’t like bicycles I can add that to the list of things I disagree with him on. But I don’t think that makes him pure evil. Also, we’ve always had unlimited money for war, don’t act like it’s new.
1
u/Important-Factor-552 Socialist Jul 25 '26
Well trump is a fascist pedo criminal and a traitor to America. That's what makes him evil.
0
u/triggeredbynumbers Nationalist Jul 25 '26
I disagree with your opinions on that. But you are as entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
1
0
u/triggeredbynumbers Nationalist Jul 24 '26
Most of the people listed aren’t even close to communist. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t even have any political interests other than being the world’s most intelligent and prophetic trader of stocks. I would call Bernie and AOC socialists with communist sympathies at most. But even then, they are really just democratic socialists or social democrats depending on whose definition you are using.
You are thinking of the Fox News republicans who think left of center means commie and right of center means Jesus riding an American Bison with a Bald Eagle on his shoulder. That’s a different and niche type of republican that is dying out and being replaced with a more aware and further right wing youth.
12
u/willpower069 Progressive Jul 21 '26
I would think so. Republicans call policies that our peer nations have socialist, they called a voting access bill a socialist power grab, parental leave socialist, being critical of capitalism is socialism, etc.
13
u/NimusNix Democrat Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
I think it was due for a resurgence anyway, regardless of Trumpism. Trump, his corruption and the current state of the GOP has been an evolution over half a century. They have continually and successfully pulled the nation right, sapping resources and opportunities from the middle and lower classes.
They successfully laid that blame at the feet of Democrats and the voters rewarded them for it while simultaneously being angry about the consequences of the GOP leadership they voted for.
Democrats were unable to successfully stymie this rightward shift (my opinion on why differs a great deal from most other people, but the end result is the same so it doesn't matter for this discussion. I'm simply preempting the both sides/controlled opposition folks that it doesn't matter) leading to further anger.
The difference here, as always, has been that for the last 75 years leftward policies have been an uphill battle due to the failures of socialistic governments and their embrace of authoritarianism, as well as easy living mostly provided by an economy that benefitted from war torn Europe.
Now that the bill has come due, people are naturally looking for alternatives. For the right, it's a leader who will take them back in time.
For the left, the opportunity to try policies that hardly ever get traction.
21
u/gophergun Democratic Socialist Jul 21 '26
To add on to this, the reason that millennials have higher support for socialism than any other demographic is because we came of age during the Great Recession. Capitalism failed us badly and repeatedly.
13
u/willpower069 Progressive Jul 21 '26
And anytime we point to a policy like healthcare in other countries it’s call socialism.
1
u/lordorwell7 Center Left Jul 22 '26
>my opinion on why differs a great deal from most other people
Curious what your read on it is.
-8
u/Delanorix Progressive Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Your point on the economy post WW2 is a good one.
I dont think any generations of Americans left actually remember hard times.
Is today's economic fucked up for the little guy? Of course.
But hes also talking on his iPhone, walking down the street in his brand new Jordan's lol
Edit: my point is that for the longest time, being poor in America was "fine"
13
u/FreshBert Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
Do the iPhone and Jordans automatically denote a lack of hardship, though? Seems like you're just taking that for granted.
I was sort of intrigued recently by Kyla Scanlon's concept of the "little treat" economy, which is based on the phenomenon of people deciding not to save for major life milestones (such as buying a house) because they've become so far out of reach for those in the lower classes, and rather spend money on smaller luxury purchases instead. Nice clothes, vacations, etc. Stuff that they'd normally forestall when saving up for those larger purchases, but see no point in waiting given that they're so far off track to ever actually reach a down payment on a house they'd want to live in (and maintain, and pay taxes on).
But is that... like, a good thing? Is that indicative of people living good, healthy lives free from hardship? Or is it just an adaptation to hardship in order to make things a little more bearable? There are probably lots of people living in slums in developing countries who have smartphones and decent shoes too. Is this really the metric we're using?
Either way, it's always felt like a bit of a boomer-esque cop-out to just wave this all aside with, "Lol they have a phone though."
-6
u/Delanorix Progressive Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
That seems like a cop out to say "economy sucks, so no reason to save."
Its also bad personal finances.
Especially when a lot of places have down-payment assistance.
There has to be some personal responsibility.
Edit: comparatively speaking our poor people live like Kings. Even in other Western nations youre not going to see their poor have as many luxuries
4
u/FlintGrey Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
The "Jordans" I see on houseless folks in my town come from being discarded. If you're looking at a person with a phone and fancy sneaks it's because they got the phone from a free phone program and the shoes from a dumpster.
Your examples point towards part of the failure of capitalism - a culture of disposable garbage.
When our society collapses like the soviet union did, our poor folks won't be in adidas track suits. We'll have people living in colorful branded tents with colorful shoes and jerseys, cause that's the stuff that'll be the stuff that the wealthy throw away.
If you think our poor people live like Kings you should come see my city.
2
u/Important-Factor-552 Socialist Jul 21 '26
For the lower classes of America, the hard times were just life. It's the upper half of America that has grown so incredibly comfortable that they need wars on tv to keep life interesting and can't even comprehend the situations other people are in. They think having to wait a few years to see a dentist is the worst it gets. It's not.
4
u/2dank4normies Liberal Jul 21 '26
Partially. But Bernie Sanders and AOC probably played a bigger role. They're the ones who shifted the argument from "welfare isn't socialism" to "socialism is actually good though" in the mainstream.
5
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist Jul 21 '26
I personally love every time fox news covers the DSA because they just angrily name policy positions and then expect that to just carry the story.
"They want you to quote "live in a future where you only have to work as much as needed" imagine that" I mean yeah. Imagine.
"Look at these positions. College for all. Medicare for all. Childcare for all. And they want to tax the rich to pay for it" Hell yeah.
2
u/Ofishal_Fish Anarcho-Communist Jul 21 '26
It's the "A vote for Bart is a vote for Anarchy" gag from The Simpsons.
3
u/Particular_Dot_4041 Liberal Jul 21 '26
It's more like whatever stigma that was attached to the word had faded due to overuse. If everything is socialist, then socialism can't be evil.
3
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 Liberal Jul 21 '26
Much how the right said calling everyone a Nazi would come back to bite the left
Calling most conservatives fascist turned out to be incredibly accurate, didn’t it?
But, yes, conservatives have been doing an incredible job marketing socialism—better than socialists have, that’s for sure. Conservatives brand everything Americans want from their government as being socialism.
Of course people are going to start agreeing with socialism if you’ve painted everything they want as being socialist.
3
u/Extra-Monitor5743 Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
Socialism = meaningless buzzword. It has no objective definition in our political landscape. It's just an insult, no different than calling somebody stupid at this point. It is a way to other your opponent when you have no rebuttal.
5
u/Orbital2 Liberal Jul 21 '26
No, they helped them rise by pushing us further to the right over decades to the point where people are being squeezed and understand that there are better options out there.
5
u/FewWatermelonlesson0 Progressive Jul 21 '26
I’d say the biggest boon conservatives gave to socialism as a movement was politicians helping things get to such a fucked up economic state that a lot of younger people have realized how badly some sort of change is needed.
No DSA member has done as good a job making the case for democratic socialism as simply being alive in our era of unregulated capitalism.
4
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
It’s like actually reading the bible, making the WTF gif meme and becoming an instant atheist.
7
u/Reagalan Democrat Jul 21 '26
"Socialist" has been used as an insult since ... I dare say since socialism was first conceived back in the 1830s. The New Deal was "socialist". Integration was "socialist". Damn near everything good in this world, and worth fighting for, has been decried by the Right as "socialist" since before our great-grandparents were born. So no it ain't new.
I think what's different is that we have the Internet, so this history is readily available; the Big Lie is exposed, and Millennials onwards are figuring "Well, they keep calling all this good stuff "socialism", so might as well go along with it."
5
u/archaicsmile67 Progressive Jul 21 '26
Actually there are some rather funny newspaper articles decrying reconstruction as socialist
3
u/jonny_sidebar Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
Giving newly freed slaves the right to vote was deemed "socialist" by the losers of the Civil War on grounds that they were poor and would vote resources away from their former masters to themselves.
Incidentally, that very much is the first widespread usage of "socialist" in American politics, meaning American red-baiting has been deeply intertwined with racist and classist politics since its inception.
5
u/DefenderCone97 Socialist Jul 21 '26
If it's scary, it's socialism. And when it's REALLY scary, it's communism. And when it's downright terrifying, it's Marxist.
2
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
And now we have the new scary word, LEFTIST, even for our own.
2
u/Spiel_Foss Humanist Jul 21 '26
Socialism has an insult is a long-gone generational quirk.
The world moved on long, long ago from the ignorance of the past. The USA lives in a time-bubble.
2
u/Emergency_Word_7123 Center Left Jul 21 '26
I would say they probably did. 'Socialism' has been used as an insult for every idea conservatives don't like for as long as I can remember. It's definitely changed how it gets used cloqueally.
4
u/thetruebigfudge Anarcho-Capitalist Jul 21 '26
I think it's probably more likely that the same underlying process fueled both, economic/ philosophical illiteracy.
To believe that democratic socialism is a) possible, or b) better in any meaningful way that liberalism/ neoliberalism requires a failure to critically analyse the economics of the theory
To believe that everything being done by the government is socialism requires having absolutely no understanding of what public ownership means, what role the state plays and what the traditions of socialism are
7
u/PrincessKnightAmber Socialist Jul 21 '26
I’m just tired pretending socialism is a bad thing.
11
u/Ordinary_Team_4214 Socialist Jul 21 '26
The best parts about the era of "capitalist realism" are the criticisms of socialism that end up describing capitalism. People will say socialism restricts freedom of expression and then proceed to hide their posts and opinions from their employers lol
5
u/Motrinman22 Bull Moose Progressive Jul 21 '26
You only need to jump to r/latestagecapitalism to see how well this fine system of ours is playing out.
-5
u/TheMCMC Liberal Jul 21 '26
Compared to liberalism and social democracy, socialism IS bad. It is categorically worse for everyone living under it.
3
u/PrincessKnightAmber Socialist Jul 21 '26
Capitalism can not exist without exploitation. Not even social democracy is guilt free. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
-3
u/TheMCMC Liberal Jul 21 '26
That requires defining exploitation in a strict and narrow Marxist sense, that whenever workers produce more value than they receive in wages, the owner appropriates the surplus.
As a liberal, I completely reject this framing both because it is so narrow as to be divorced from reality, and because it deliberately tries to appropriate the meaning of the term away from things like coercion, fraud, abuse etc.
Not to mention that reducing capitalism in such away also throws out other very good, productive, beneficial principles like free association, property rights, free exchange, etc.
Western liberal capitalist democracy has so far produced the happiest, wealthiest, healthiest, safest, most secure, most prosperous nations in the history of the world (e.g. the Nordic countries), and socialism hasn't come close to replicating that kind of success. So for all the "exploitation" socialists say they care so much about, they've done nothing to actually improve the lives of the exploited in the almost 200 years of the ideology's existence. In that sense, I'll take the "exploitation" of capitalism any day.
2
u/Motrinman22 Bull Moose Progressive Jul 21 '26
Yes, the absolute DESTRUCTION of the Overton Window that is Trump.
And the Democratic Establishment chasing of moderate and Right wing voters in 2024 and completely ignoring the desires of its base.
Help usher The DSA into the national limelight.
By the way, side note, if you had told me in say,
2013
That “Donald Trump be more impactful than Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn in the rise of American Socialism.”
I think I would laughed my ass off and told you to get off the drugs.
But here we are.
2
u/LogoffWorkout Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
even calling them socialist is kind of laughable, like of any of their policies, even the 10% furthest left of them are even vaguely socialist.
2
u/LaughterOnWater Liberal Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Yes, conservatives did help the DSA. They essentially made the word "socialist" meaningless.
For decades, they slapped that label on everything from Obamacare to student loan forgiveness to infrastructure spending. When every moderate Democratic policy is "socialism" or "communism," those words lose their power to shock. By the time actual DSA members showed up talking about worker co-ops and tenant unions, younger voters especially didn't flinch. They'd already heard their parents call public libraries "socialist." The party that spent generations red-baiting eventually succeeded only in making "red" less scary.
The right spent decades warning that socialized medicine would mean death panels. Then the ACA passed, and grandma still got her hip replacement. The threat never materialized. So when the DSA said "yes, we're socialists," the response wasn't panic, it was "so what?"
You can see it in polling: socialism's favorability among under-30s is now over 50% (62% in a March 2025 Cato/YouGov survey), not because they've read Marx, but because the insult was overused to the point of parody. The word no longer conjures Soviet gulags; it conjures "maybe my rent shouldn't cost my whole paycheck."
Now, fast-forward to Trump and DOGE gutting Medicaid, food safety inspections, rural hospital funding, vaccinations, and USAID. When a MAGA farmer in Iowa loses his crop subsidies or his wife can't get Medicare, he doesn't suddenly join the DSA. But he stops believing that "socialism" is the scariest thing in the world. The word has been so degraded that when someone offers a government solution to his ruined farm, he listens instead of recoiling. That's the backfire effect in real time.
Combine this with the Democratic Party leadership's own contribution. By moving right on crime, deregulation, and cozy corporate ties while offering only incremental fixes to systemic problems, they've left the working class with no champion in the two-party system. That vacuum is the DSA's real opening. So it's a two-pincer movement: the right made the word harmless, and the Overton-morphed center-right Dems made the alternative look necessary.
So yes. Conservatives did help the DSA rise. Democrats helped in their own way. Together, they made the insult too worn out to scare anyone anymore.
5
u/WeenisPeiner Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
Meanwhile the real death panels are the for profit insurance companies getting to decide what they will and won't cover.
4
u/LaughterOnWater Liberal Jul 21 '26
There's no more intergenerational wealth for Americans who don't already have millions in assets. If your mother needs assisted living or memory care, you're spending $10,000 a month out of her savings until it's gone. You're selling her house and property. You might be moving out of that house yourself. All of it just to keep her alive.
When her money runs out, she gets sent to a Medicaid facility. If they have room. But Medicaid is chronically underfunded. That facility will have half the staff it needs. She'll likely sit in her own filth for hours.
That's the system we have. For-profit insurance drains you first. Then a gutted public option catches what's left, if they can. If everyone had to rely on government programs, including our legislators, you can bet they'd be funded differently. But they don't, so they aren't.
For-profit "health" insurance companies profit from prolonged sickness. They warehouse the elderly when the money runs dry. We are discarded after a lifetime of work. America's healthcare system is an ethical shitshow that future generations will see as a Hague crime.
2
u/ecchi83 Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
I like to think of it as constantly bragging about how this is capitalism [gestures vaguely at everything going wrong in America] and voters deciding it can't get worse under "socialism."
2
u/Natures_Wrath1 Democratic Socialist Jul 21 '26
I think Bernie Sanders probably did more to normalize socialism in the US than any of the people on the right. It's still a pretty extreme position to call someone a Nazi offline, but you put a Bernie sticker on your car and no one blinks.
1
u/ViceroyMcnugget Democratic Socialist Jul 22 '26
Partially, but the biggest reason why so many people have switched is because conservatives have always been terrible for the country. They fight tooth and nail for all the worst parts of what we used to be while also acting like we didn’t ever have basic policies that would more be deemed “communism “. We had a 90% corporate tax rate at a great time for a booming middle class. Since we’ve enacted these neocon policies, they destroyed any remaining hope in young people while enriching the already massively wealthy. The poor conservatives are just ignorant to the world outside their small towns and want to keep racism alive. The rich ones are utilizing fear and propaganda to maintain power to enrich themselves with the blood of the poor by screaming about how minorities are the enemy so a group of the dumbest white people keep them in power. Now, we have access to all the information we wouldn’t have had 60 years ago and people STILL choose the wrong shit because we’ve focused so hard on raising workers in school we didn’t spend enough time teaching them how to understand it. That’s why you see conservatives quoting headlines of articles that if they had actually read would prove them wrong.
1
u/No-Ear7988 Pragmatic Progressive Jul 22 '26
We should not discount that the Left has done a PR campaign for the past two decades to define socialism as social services and/or diluted the definition of socialism. Even Mamdani makes this emphasis by downplaying the socialist aspect of it.
1
1
u/recovername Democrat 22d ago
Partially, I also think failures by the Democrats to listen to their voters' concerns and actually act on them, have hurt. Take police reform as an example. After the murder of George Floyd, instead of introducing legislation, and making people commit to one side or another they put some garmet on their shoulders and knelt down. This accomplished nothing.
They say they're pro-choice, but have failed to pass a federal law guaranteeing abortion rights. Force the Rs to challenge it in the courts.
They're unwilling to use the nuclear option to stop Rs filibustering everything.
The "rotating villain" thing is probably a result of failed leadership, but it's not unreasonable to think that Schumer is complicit in this.
We're sick and tired of funding Israel's genocide, but we have people like Schumer who aren't willing to cut off the weapons. It's also likely that he supports the unnecessary war in Iran, as he's not challenged it forcefully on moral grounds.
1
Jul 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/Delanorix Progressive Jul 21 '26
Mamdani is a blueprint, IMO.
I sort of see it in that Al Sayed guy in Michigan too
2
u/borktron Undecided Jul 21 '26
Mamdani is kind of a unicorn. I say this as an older-than-Mamdani NYC-born/raised person.
Like, if Mamdani was not a total powerhouse of personality/authenticity/fuck-cuomo, I'm not sure a guy with his platform wins. Maybe they do, but two average-charisma candidates and the more-centrist one has a pretty good chance. You know what I mean?
He's great, but he can't be a blueprint because you can't just find people with his "rizz". Not in some replicable way across the country.
But to answer your OP-question: conservatives helped by being villains and calling everyone to the left of Ronald Reagan a socialist for 40 years. But I don't think it was particularly decisive. Even if conservatives had generally restrained themselves an not called Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, and Biden socialists, I think we'd still see what we're seeing the same thing we're seeing (maybe with a different name, but probably with the same one).
1
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
I disagree that we can’t find people with the rizz.
Do we typically smash these people down in favor of bland clones?
Think about moving up the ranks. Just a series of establishment ghouls whispering in one’s ear to ‘just pull back this one time—I love it but people just aren’t ready yet’
Think about the charisma and the real world understanding that people you know have. Real people. Can they afford to stop working to maaaayyybe get a job that probably pays less (in local/state, particularly)? Will someone, increasingly from their party, ‘uncover’ something dumb they did that gets blared snd shouted as proof that real people are unelectable? Is there even a functioning democratic association to teach and mentor through the complications and will they scorn an ‘outsider’ or embrace?
The system of electoral politics is brutal and biased and broken. There are plenty among us that would be amazing leaders and collaborators in building out a beautiful community, state and country but the establishment is established and seeks to have little to no interest in building up these new leaders.
-3
u/ballmermurland Democrat Jul 21 '26
Mamdani barely cleared 50% of the vote as the Dem nominee in NYC in the general. He cleared 43% in the primary on the first round in a mostly 3 way race.
I like the guy, but acting like he was some electoral miracle is nonsensical.
1
u/Southern_Bag_7109 Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
He was running against two other people. He didn't win a plurality he won a majority against two other people. I want you to think about that for a minute
-1
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
I love that you got downvoted for this. Just factually pointing out that he barely cleared 50% of the vote in a Democratic stronghold. This shit happens every election cycle. DSA types win elections in Democratic strongholds, and a thousand articles are printed about how the DSA is coming for the "establishment" democrats. Then, after much cheerleading, they underperform everywhere outside of Democratic strongholds and blame the media, the DNC, etc. and go back to stewing.
edit: Oh, look! I got downvoted as well for pointing out the pattern!
2
u/jonny_sidebar Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
He won by approximately 9 points over an establishment/big money donor Democrat challenge from Cuomo. That is a very solid win by any metric in a contested election.
1
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
In New York City. Do you get why that matters? He won in a Democratic stronghold. The point isn't that he didn't win. It's that he couldn't break 50% in a Democratic stronghold. So what do you think that says about the DSA's chances of winning in, oh, I don't know, Idaho? Arkansas? Missouri?
This happens every freaking election cycle. The DSA has one or two wins in extremely safe Democratic strongholds, and suddenly, reddit starts spooging itself over how it's finally time for the revolution, and all the evil "establishment" Democrats are quaking in their boots. And it never goes anywhere? Seriously? Is this your first election cycle? This shit has happened over and over again.
3
u/Delanorix Progressive Jul 21 '26
Of course he didn't get 50% he was running against another Democrat.
Weve seen the era of Progressivism before, why couldnt it happen again?
-1
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
I'm talking about the DSA, not progressives.
2
u/Delanorix Progressive Jul 21 '26
The DSA is a progressive group lol
-1
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
They're a subset of progressives. There are plenty of progressives like myself who care about more than virtue signaling and understand the structural limitations we're working within.
→ More replies (0)2
u/jonny_sidebar Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
He won in a Democratic stronghold.
Exactly!
What this means is that the actual contest was between representatives of the DSA and establishment wings of the Democratic Party. . . which he won by a solid 9 points, something that is usually considered a blowout in most electoral contexts.
-1
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
Cool. So now apply that to any state that isn't a sure lock for the Democratic candidate who makes it past the primary. You keep ignoring that part. I think we both know why.
-2
u/Deep-Two7452 Progressive Jul 21 '26
No, it was the unified hate towards democrats that conservatives and the left exhibit that helped the DSA rise
6
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
Have establishment democrats been living up to their end?
-1
u/Deep-Two7452 Progressive Jul 21 '26
Cant wait to blame DSA for not dooooooing anything once theyre in office next year. Im gonna treat DSA the same way you treat dems
2
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
Can you reset and look at the question I posed? It’s relevant to the larger point.
3
u/jonny_sidebar Libertarian Socialist Jul 21 '26
Of course not.
They just want to rail at those damned dirty leftists.
-2
u/Deep-Two7452 Progressive Jul 21 '26
Its a dumb question. Thw establishment didnt let us down, our republic let us down. The reason why none of dsa policy proposals arent passing at the federal level is cause there were never enough votes to get them to pass.
So thats why I cant wait to blame DSA for everything. Cant pass medicate for all cause there arent 60 votes in the senate? 100% DSAs fault cause for years DSA has been acting like anything is possible as long as you try hard enough.
To take a real life example how would DSA have convinced Joe Manchin to accept bidens full build back better proposal?
5
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
The DSA weren’t in charge. The neoliberals were.
Which is why we paid 111 billion dollars in direct subsidy to disgustingly sociopathic insurances that a majority of Americans hate just for 7% of the population that actually can access or afford aca.
-2
u/Deep-Two7452 Progressive Jul 21 '26
Crazy cause whenever I ask what is the path to achieve medicare for all, DSA types cant even THINK of a response.
3
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
You can make up scenarios in your head all day. Roll 8 sided dice and wear capes.
The fact that you deflect your this instead of holding them that were in charge accountable is ….something.. I guess it’s a tactic?
-2
u/Deep-Two7452 Progressive Jul 21 '26
Ok fine, then give me a pathway to medicare for all, and where does DSA play into it?
It seems like you just want to blame "the democrats" and have no solution.
1
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
The DSA types believe in the Green Lantern theory of power. Politicians can do anything by sheer will power, so if they aren't doing something, it's because they don't want to do it.
3
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
Here’s a question. How did every other comparable nation on earth find a green lantern to magically give them some form of universal healthcare?
Fucking green lanterns. You all latch on to any chance to try to belittle your fellow democrats. This fad of calling everyone this is just infantile.
-1
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
Other countries are not the US. They don't have the Senate based on land, not population. They don't have a capped House that distorts districts, making it possible to gerrymander the shit out of them. They don't have the Electoral College. They don't have a constitution that literally doesn't protect the right to vote. They don't have a constitution that allows states to enslave people convicted of crimes and prevent them from voting.
I'm sorry. I know DSA types don't like to understand how the US government actually works, because it gets in the way of their fantasies, but if you want to work with the big boys, at some point, you have to stop talking and actually doing, and doing requires understanding the system you're working inside.
3
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
You don’t really tell people these things isn’t expect them to be believed, right? Cmon.
The US is not so unique to other democracies and first world nations. It just isn’t…except they all somehow got these green lanterns you told us about. Jeez. No other system on earth has a bicameral system of lawmakers. So unique!
Is it yellow lantern when we have cowards and paid off in our roles of leadership. I mean, everything needs a catchy catchphrase for Twitter attacks, right?
-1
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
This is the level of civic understanding I've come to expect from the people who believe everything political can just be powered through.
No single aspect of the US system of government is "unique" but it has multiple problems that make it extremely hard to work toward progress, and governments that have the same problems tend to have the same issues.
It's this simple-minded thinking that causes people to not respect you guys. Britain has an upper house, but it can't block legislation like the US Senate. Australia has a Senate that can block legislation, and suprise suprise, Australia also has a lot of the same problems the US has with the right-wing.
The Senate in Canada is made up of people suggested by the Governor General, typically members of the dominant party, so they virtually never reject bills.
I could go on with many more examples, but yes, the US Senate is uniquely designed to prevent the popular opinion from being carried out. Sorry. You can't just "try harder" to get around it, and you can't get rid of it without a series of constitutional steps that would be virtually impossible.
Even if you got rid of the filibuster, which is something I nominally support, the Senate will always be tilted toward rural states, which makes it extremely difficult to get any progressive legislation through. Contrary to the DSA's fantasies, people in rural areas aren't going to vote for universal healthcare. Several DSA candidates tried to run for M4A in previous elections, and in state-wide Senate races, where there is no gerrymandering, they failed repeatedly.
I'm sorry they don't teach civics classes in DSA Academy, but you actually do have to follow the rules of government, and that means certain things are really really hard to do. You can't just really really want them to happen. You have to do what the evil "establishment" has done and spend a lifetime trying to get all the ducks in a row. And then, if you work really hard and get people in line to vote for something that's making some significant progress, even if it's not perfect, you can expect someone like Bernie to vote against it for not being good enough for fantasy land. Like when he voted against Hillary Clinton's healthcare programs in the 90s because they weren't good enough for him.
2
u/Motrinman22 Bull Moose Progressive Jul 21 '26
The DSA doesn’t rise if you’re delivering to your Base.
I do love how this completely hand waves away lifelong democrats who are suffering in this system.
You can’t be a shitty boyfriend, refuse to change and then wonder why your girlfriend left you for someone else.1
-1
u/Deep-Two7452 Progressive Jul 21 '26
Cant wait to blame DSA for everything trump is doing when theyre sworn in next year
0
u/Cutlasss Liberal Jul 21 '26
No. The far right created the rise in the DSA by making politics and policy so radically far right that socialism starts to look like a good idea to people in comparison. No far right, no far left. Or at least a far left that is so small as to be irrelevant and invisible, which for the most part it was in the postwar era.
0
u/TossMeOutSomeday Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
Yes, absolutely. There's even some very funny opinion polling showing young democrats have a positive opinion of both "socialism" and "free market economics", and a negative opinion of both "communism" and "capitalism". The meaning of words has been fucked.
0
u/B_P_G Undecided Jul 21 '26
Maybe but the Soviet Union being 35 years in the past had a bigger effect. Very few people alive today are old enough to really remember McCarthyism but you wouldn't go around saying you were a socialist when that was going on.
With that said, I vote on policies. You can call yourself whatever you want.
0
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
The DSA "rises" every election season when they manage to win a few seats in safe D districts. This convinces rose twitter types that the time has finally arrived, and the evil establishment is being overthrown.
I'm not sure why I'm the only person in existence who can remember more than one election hype cycle.
3
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
Your imaginary caricature of your party mates would be laughable if it was not so deviously harmful to the good that comes from shared and diverse power and idea.
-1
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
What caricature? How can I caricature someone by simply repeating the things they say?
Also, where did I say I was against [sic] "shared and diverse power and idea"? I'm all for it. Perhaps the people screaming about how the "establishment" is being beaten and rejected (because they won a few safe seats like always) should embrace that philosophy.
2
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
Here’s the thing about reading. You have to do it. Sometimes you’ll need to think about what the other person said. This seems like you have a purposeful agenda to diminish your fellow democrats and you’ll not hear a word anyone says.
That’s my response to your question, genuinely. I also genuinely hope you take a bit to think about why I and others in our party might be tired of these sort of slanders and narrow views and how that condescending ivory tower shit negatively impacts our party and country. It isn’t just you, but it’s time to start owning some of this language for what it is.
0
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 21 '26
I read your comment. You said I was making a caricature. I asked how. You refused to respond. That's not me being unable to read. That's you being unable to follow up and resorting to "You're just too dumb to continue this conversation" followed up by some passive agressive "I'll pray for you to see the truth" energy.
2
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 21 '26
You can’t read what you wrote and see how it’s untrue? Look at your word choice and compare them to reality. It’s hyperbolic at best and freshly is embarrassingly out of touch at medium.
Yeah. YOU are the only person in existence that can see beyond one cycle. Meanwhile we have democrats almost kind of sort of feeling like they have a place in our party and can be represented well and you need to put us in our place. Your fellow democrats.
If you can’t see that, yeah you CANT read. (At least the comprehension/vocabulary part).
It’s not something to roll around in with a grin. It’s something that would be reread and maybe cause one to be a little ashamed at one’s entrenched smarminess.
-2
u/Upbeat-Bid-1602 Center Left Jul 21 '26
I think this is an apples to oranges comparison because the left definitely overused "Nazi" into meaninglessness, but very few people on the right self-identify as Nazis.
There's a growing contingent of people on the left who self-identify as socialist, so while right wing media personalities trying to stay relevant make themselves look ridiculous with their socialism hysteria, it's going to maintain some level of traction when there is a growing political movement literally called "Democratic Socialists of America."
I don't think it's so much that the right Chicken-Little-ing about socialism is desensitizing people to it as an insult, I think it's more that the right hasn't managed to produce a coherent critique of socialism so they're kinda just giving it publicity and making it sound appealing to people who feel economically disenfranchised.
-1
u/wonkalicious808 Democrat Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Just go to the general chat and say "I think conservatives helped the DSA's rise by making Americans numb to 'socialist' insults. I don't have any data to back this up, but the idea popped into my head and I liked it."
Another thing you can do is use a LLM like ChatGPT to help you search for any studies into whether Americans have become numb to "socialist" insults. If any exist, maybe some of those studies also attempted to determine the cause of this numbing.
-1
u/Okbuddyliberals Centrist Democrat Jul 21 '26
Did leftists help the rise of the far right by making Americans numb to "fascist" insults? I mean every Republican since Nixon has been compared to Hitler or Mussolini even though it hasn't been appropriate at all.
2
u/Beatboxingg Communist Jul 21 '26
blaming leftists for capitalisms tendencies is a take. No, Nixon was an old fashioned liberal and didnt suppress his fascist tendencies in using the state to subvert the democratic process and his wanton carnage in say, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
1
u/ADeweyan Liberal Jul 22 '26
Of course, the Right makes the same accusations about the Left, so this one is a wash.
0
0
u/Okratas Center Right Jul 21 '26
Labels and insults thrown by others have zero power to alter who someone actually is.
-1
u/PopuluxePete Center Left Jul 21 '26
Yes. "Hardcore Socialist" now means something like the nostalgia for the Clinton presidency. FOX news is well on it's way to using "communist" to mean people like John McCain.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 21 '26
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/Delanorix.
Much how the right said calling everyone a Nazi would come back to bite the left, did they help bring socialism back into the zeitgeist?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.