Why Are We Afraid of Saying "Socialism"?

[will_in_chicago]

Jeff Farias mentioned an interesting article on his program where it talks about two terms that we often talk about a lot but that are not always defined -- socialism and capitalism. I would argue that it is vital for people who are discussing political issues to have common definitions, otherwise communication becomes difficult if not impossible.

Here is an excerpt from the article by Frances Moore Lappe in Alternet.


Why Are We Afraid of Saying "Socialism"?

Knee-jerk reactions to words like "socialism" and "capitalism" get us nowhere. We need to first define the terms.
By Frances Moore Lappé, AlterNet
Posted on March 30, 2010, Printed on March 31, 2010

“Socialist” has become the new favorite term of derision--working its fear-making magic because, for many Americans, socialism equals the great “government takeover.” It’s assumed to be not just un-American but downright anti-American. Tea Partiers at their round up in Searchlight, Nevada, told us that “socialist” Harry Reid “hates America.”

Our national aversion to the S-word isn’t necessarily a problem. But the term’s rapid rise as a political pot-shot, points to a huge problem: our culture’s lack of a common civic language, words on whose meaning we at least vaguely agree. Without it, we can’t hope to talk to one another about what matters most.

“We have a language of capitalism. We have a language of Marxism. But we have no language of democracy,” historian Lawrence Goodwyn once remarked.

And we need one.


I think that we need to ask people what they mean, and move beyond bumper sticker dialog.

[IndianaJoe]

1. "Socialism" - There, I've said it!

And it didn't scare me one bit.

[Tansy_Gold]

2. I'm not. I say it all the time. "I consider myself a democratic socialist."

It's actually quite painless. Oh, it scares some people at first, but after they get over the initial shock, they usually start asking questions. It can be quite a learning experience for them.



Tansy Gold, your friendly neighborhood socialist

[mediaman007]

3. There are some things that government does better. They should

be socialist: Highways, military, education, health care.

[will_in_chicago]

6. The limits of capitalism

You mentioned some things that many people share and use. Thom Hartmann commonly refers to these areas as part of the commons, the part of society and the world that we share. Libertarians essentially argue that there should be no commons.

However, I argue that the libertarians have often forgotten about the one invention that makes all other inventions possible, to paraphrase Isaac Asimov. That invention is community.

Sometimes, I think that we glorify the individual to an extreme in this society. That was my reaction to the TV show "Survivor." Groups, not individuals, allow us to achieve things that we could not on our own as individuals -- whether we are members of a post-industrial society or hunter-gatherers.

Also, I am very wary about the abuse of language. We have seen how the Republicans smeared the word liberal. So, I say discuss the issues, define the terms, and let us have a true dialog worthy of the spirit of democracy.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. The war against the word "socialism" isn't new. It goes back over a century and a half...

It is not the new term of derision. The derision of socialism was old when FDR was President, it was getting up in years when Teddy Roosevelt was President. The rise has not been rapid. When Hitler used the term National Socialism to define is ultra right wing, utterly anti-socialist government, the term had been made into a boggey man here in the U.S. for more than 60 years. Really, Frances Moore Lappe should crack a history book.

[will_in_chicago]

9. I know this is an old bogeyman

Yes, this is an old bogeyman, and we saw a lot of it in the late 1800s. (A check of the political cartoons of the era will show many people labelled as socialist or anarchist made to look like foreigners or somehow different from the social norm of the time.) However, I think that the current war is interesting in that socialism is perhaps not the frightening term that it once was -- more of us think of Sweden than Nazi Germany when he hear the term socialism. I wonder whether the term socialism will be "swift-boated" or will it fail?

[Ozymanithrax]

27. We think of Sweden rather than Nazi Germany because Nazi Germany wasn't socialist...

Political science classes and historians have taught that fact since WWII. They change the right left scale used to define relationships between political systems with Maximum government at 1 end (where they put Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, etc.) and No government at the other. In the ranking system, socialism and Nazism are the same because they simply changed the definition of right and left.

If you talk to a right winger/Conservative about Nazi Germany they no longer use the same definition that you do. It is as if two people had a conversation about an object. One person defined that object as a rose and the other as a pile of shit. In that conversation, neither person realizes that the other person is using a completely different definition. They pretend that they are using the same definition for the same object.

This is what the conservative right has done in th is country, redefine things they don't like to mean something different.

[will_in_chicago]

30. Difficulties in dialog

You summarized one of the key problems with politics in this country -- the lack of a common language.

The Nazis only picked up the term socialist to appeal to some voters but looked to Mussolini's Fascist Italy for inspiration. They were corporatists. The Soviet Union was many things, but corpratist was not among them.

Perhaps one of the toughest questions for us is how do we have a dialog with people whose terms do not share the same meanings as ours. For example, based on the classic definitions of socialism, Barack Obama is not a socialist. Heck, you could perhaps argue that Nixon and Ford with their price control programs in the 1970s were closer to being socialists than Obama. So, how do we reach out to those who are using different definitions and is dialog possible? Or will we continue to talk past each other?

[Edweird]

5. That word makes Rush say mean things and Glenn Beck cry.

[Oregone]

7. Say it in a mirror 3 times in the dark, and Stalin will come out and jerk you off

[kenny blankenship]

8. Socialism: the subordination of capital to democratic process

'Say toot' as the Frenchies say.

[eridani]

10. Never mind that. Why are we afraid to even say PUBLIC GOODS? n/t

[Xicano]

11. Because of these three words: Corporate propaganda conditioning

n/t

[Ardent15]

12. Because the Owners and Bosses of the country don't want...

..us to see the big picture.

[dyingnumbers]

13. Speaking of bumper-sticker dialog

Solutions For a Small Socialism.

Enter a word for your own slogan:

Generated by the Advertising Slogan Generator. Get more socialism slogans.

[dem mba]

14. hi I'm America, have we met?

we stay away from 'Socialism' because people won't vote for Democrats if they think we're Socialists. It doesn't matter at all that they don't know what the term means. They know it's bad. Maybe they even know that the Nazis were the National Socialism party (thanks Glenn Beck).

Remember 'Tippecanoe and Tyler too'? '54-40 or fight'?

http://www.presidentsusa.net/campaignslogans.html

Yea, this is America. We were for bumper sticker slogans before there were even bumpers to put them on. They knew about framing back then. They knew about "zing"ing your opponent. This is not new. These are the rules of the game. And if you fail to heed them (John Kerry) you lose.

[hfojvt]

20. that about sums it up

except that was not always true. An actual avowed socialist like Eugene Debs could pull 12-15% of the vote in some states. And even in 1920, after WWI, Debs still got 3.4%. By 1928 though, Norman Thomas was down to less than 1%

[troubledamerican]

15. Interstate Freeway System.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. They are afraid. I'm not. I'm a socialist.

Liberals have been Very Afraid of the socialist word since the 50's.

[TheLiberalNovelist]

17. Another socialist right here!

I'm not afraid to say socialism. I support socialism completely, but I will be very quiet about that fact around far right christian conservatives and conservatives in general. And trust me...I live in eastern Kentucky...there's A LOT of them here.

[donco6]

18. No idea. They've made it into this horrible idea.

It's not.

[TheLiberalNovelist]

19. We can all blame...

coughglennbeckcough

[anigbrowl]

22. Yes, it is a horrible idea.

You want a Swedish-style welfare state? OK, I think that might be a very good idea. That's a social democracy.

In a socialist economy you don't get to have any property of your own. The state owns it all. If you wake up one morning with a brilliant idea and are inspired to start a business, you better hope the government approves of your idea...because if they don't, you won't be allowed any resources to implement it. In a capitalist economy (which includes social democracies like Sweden) you only have to persuade one person who is able to write a check that your idea is worth investing in. The state does not presume to decide what people should do with their own money or labor, under most circumstances.

If you believe in pure socialism, show me one country that has implemented it successfully - by which I mean that GDP per capita in that country is similar to that of a developed nation and citizens and come and go as they please if they wish to travel to other countries.

[donco6]

23. Right - go for the gold.

Who said anything about "pure socialism"? Has it even existed?

Now I see where the boogeyman comes from.

[anigbrowl]

28. Well, the thread title uses the word 'socialism'

And the article which it cites wiggles away from that and says that it's the same kind of thing as social democracy. But it's not.

I really do think socialism is a horrible idea because state ownership of all property is just not a good recipe for economic prosperity or freedom. And like it or not, that's the basic principle of socialism as an economic system. which is why I prefer to think of myself as a social democrat. I am quite OK with things like a welfare state and publicly owned and administered healthcare, education etc. Public ownership of industry, not so much.

[anigbrowl]

21. Same old BS

Social democracy (of the kind found in Europe) is not socialism...which has already been well-defined, many many times as an economic system in which all property is ultimately owned and administrated by the state.

Most people who say they are not socialists know perfectly well what it means and simply do not wish to bring about such a system. Socialism as an economic system may be motivated by the best of intentions, but simply does not work well in practice.

[HughBeaumont]

24. But say "Unbridled Corporatism" and you'll be called a "Commie".

You know, because that system has worked out SO well for us thus far.

[tavalon]

25. Socialist here.

I started out on this board around 2003 and was a Democrat. I still vote Democratic more often than not because of the two party stranglehold, but it was here at DU that I learned that socialism more closely fits my personal ideals. Within my poly home, we utilize socialism to a large extent.

[MajorChode]

26. Both sides are certainly guilty of bumper sticker dialog

Certainly I see this much more on the right because a disproportionate share of them seem to be incapable of any sort of discussion that isn't broken down into the simplest terms with very few syllables. However, there's also some on the left who see the world in the same type of child-like reasoning.

[will_in_chicago]

29. A common problem

In any political movement, there are always those who fall into binary logic. For example, there are the my way or the highway folks -- and they sometimes end up alienating people.

However, I think that we need to present different options on solving a problem. For example, I favor single payer, but was willing to settle for a public option. Now, I am committed to working towards expanding the health care reform bill to cover more people. (On some days, I remind myself that the journey towards a more just society is a marathon and not a sprint.)