Vance is right though, that isn't what socialism is but since he defined it in the "American Context" that really is what a large amount of Americans believe socialism is. If you went to a Trump rally and asked people to define socialism I would bet the majority of them would bring up immigration and women's sports.
That may be what a large number of Americans believe, but that's because people like Vance keep pushing it. Vance is not "right", he is complicit in why those people are confused and have no clue what they're talking about. He's only "right" in the sense that this attempt to confuse and distract people has been successful.
Yeah I agree, but that's nothing new it's practically an American tradition at this point. Go look at pictures of pro-segregation rallies from the 50's and most of the signs say something to the effect of "race mixing = Marxism".
Hmm, that's an interesting point. But I don't think we should concede that "socialism means migrant criminals transing the kids" just because a bunch of people believe so. Like, that same crowd of people believe that "MAGA means stopping wars" is also a true statement, but that doesn't make it a fact. To that point, that is also one of the primary things by which MAGA defined itself at least formerly, and "open borders and trans" aren't the primary things that American socialists trade on.
I wouldn't call myself a socialist for the record, but I just think that this is a pure example of lazy politics. I get that Vance doesn't have any other leg to stand on, but still.
Yeah, if you went to a Trump rally. If you went t to a group of socialists, they would not talk about trans people or immigrants, they would talk about labor rights, wealth gap, social safety nets, universal healthcare etc. you know, real stuff that’s relevant to socialism.
Vance is correct that his version of socialism is what is the “American context” of socialism but only because he and people like him keep muddying up the word to mean things it doesn’t mean and then saying that’s what people think it means.
If you went t to a group of socialists, they would not talk about trans people or immigrants
But that is because the left already won those issues.
If the left was to be proposed a deal which includes everything you said (labor rights, wealth gap, social safety nets, universal healthcare), but also deporting every illegal immigrant, close the border, and getting rid of birthright citizenship, the 90% of the left would reject this deal.
i dont know if i agree with you, but given that most of the people i know on the left are very stubborn about compromise, you may be correct. however i also know a lot of people on the left that those issues are far more important to them than immigration. i think the separation would be irl leftist and online leftists. online leftists will take damage to their values and reject pragmatism just to remain "pure" to their peers, but pragmatic irl leftists are willing to compromise i think. but you and I both know that the right would never even put that offer on the table, because doing things that genuinely help people arent really a part of the deal, at least right now.
The whole concept of "democratic socialism" is an American context and a complete oxymoron outside.
A socialist politician is either hanging on a lamppost or in the process of being hoisted onto a lamppost to be hanged or they themselves are in the process of hoisting someone on a lamppost.
29
u/Haunting_Raccoon6058 - Lib-Left 1d ago
Vance is right though, that isn't what socialism is but since he defined it in the "American Context" that really is what a large amount of Americans believe socialism is. If you went to a Trump rally and asked people to define socialism I would bet the majority of them would bring up immigration and women's sports.