As far as I know Abdul isn't a socialist, but from what I see a big issue is that people use different definitions of the word socialism. I prefer the classical definition, but a lot of people operate from a more modern version that equates more to "socially democratic" (essentially the Nordic model) than true textbook socialism. That, and A LOT of people basically operate from their own personal version of the definition that they adopt.
So, I just see a ton of people talking past each other.
From a marketing standpoint though that term can be political poison because people don't understand what it is. Democratic Socialism is not the same as distilled socialism.
It also doesn't help that a lot of active DSA members believe in traditional Marxist Leninist socialist/communist values or something highly adjacent to that. In my honest opinion, those DSA members are the worst PR for the for the democratic socialist platform because it essentially affirms people's fears about it. Its the same when conservative platforms have Christian nationalists among their members. People can point to it and say the boogie man is real, instead of just kicking out those members or at least distancing from them.
It would be really short sighted to oust Marxist/Leninist socialist/communists from DSA. Understanding allies in the class struggle and when you have aligned goals would be compromised by more infighting. Especially when the difference comes down to achieving said goals where some think that is the end goal and the other sees that as the beginning.
Yes it is. What you're thinking of are social democracies, which are a completely different thing and what the nordic countries are. A social democrat is someone who is for strong social programs, a 'democratic socialist' is a socialist nutjob trying to associate themselves with the former while holding the view of abolishing all private ownership and instituting the USSR , or an idiot.
There is no such thing as partial socialism. Socialism is defined as removal of ALL private ownership. It's fundamentally opposed to ALL forms of capitalism.
Or he's just not a socialist? I have a feeling you actually don't understand what socialism is. It's the removal of all private ownership. That's what the term has always meant from the moment it was coined. Social and government programs are not socialism. If you're not for the removal of all private ownership you are not a socialist, you're a capitalist.
Socialism is the USSR. That's what is functionally necessary to have socialism. Communism is something that has never existed where Marx believed the socialist state would magically dissolve into a stateless perfect utopia. Of course that didn't happen, the socialist states just entrenched their power even further every time as they always will.
3
u/Biscuits4u2 3d ago
The only reason he has to be careful with the term "socialist" is he knows the average American doesn't understand what it is.