American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks

[obvious Child]

its not-but its too bad that their disease infects so much of our economy.

But makes it so damn hard for companies to go abroad! After all, without American Socialism, they have to pay for all of the infrastructure on a green field investment themselves.

Without American Socialism, they often have to resort to bribes and security rather then counting on socialism funded police.

Without American Socialism, they often lose out on billions in corporate welfare.

Indeed, it infects the economy, so much so that corporations fight tooth and nail to stop the repeal of it.

 

[LizardofOz]

I'm just going to touch on one issue here. American where did you learn about political science and history? Obviously not from an actual school because everything to you is ran by socialist.

Can you tell me what a socialist and communist is and why they differ, what makes them similar? Did you know the cold war is over? How is Matlock? Colombo? Did you catch the "newest" episode of Murder She Wrote?







































Aaaaah I'm just ****in with ya you crazy asshole.

 

[Andalublue]

This thread is very funny to non-Americans, no really. That anyone should be shocked, outraged or defensive about the idea that some Democrats might also consider themselves socialists is fairly chuckleworthy. Is it so outrageous that a political culture could encompass both ends of the political spectrum? Is it noteworthy that there might be political representatives that question (please note, not reject, just question) the hegemony of the free-market economic model? What is it exactly that Americans, almost alone amongst the nations of the World, find the idea of socialism so threatening?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Maybe not. But it wouldn't make it fake. At most, it would simply make them (the DSA) wrong.

OK, I'm good with calling the DSA wrong, if indeed they consider their list of Congresspeople to be socialists. They are wrong, and so are people who are trying to paint the Democrats as socialists. I'm wondering whether they even know what the term really means.

I am curious, though -- if there were a Congressional caucus that the Nazi Party of America openly considered its representation in Congress, having been founded by one of its members, and overtly sharing most, if not all, of its policy goals, would it just be "fearmongering" and "fakery" to make anything of Republican members of that caucus?

Somehow, I'm guessing not.

I'm guessing that your hypothetical is meaningless.

 

[Fiddytree]

This thread is very funny to non-Americans, no really. That anyone should be shocked, outraged or defensive about the idea that some Democrats might also consider themselves socialists is fairly chuckleworthy. Is it so outrageous that a political culture could encompass both ends of the political spectrum? Is it noteworthy that there might be political representatives that question (please note, not reject, just question) the hegemony of the free-market economic model? What is it exactly that Americans, almost alone amongst the nations of the World, find the idea of socialism so threatening?

Socialism in America was a mostly dead movement by the mid twentieth century. It is a complicated matter, but essentially socialism just did not work for our country and led to little demand amongst the populace. My own state had the largest run with socialism in the country, but the party quickly fell apart under many things, including corruption. Now socialism in this country has been slowly evolving into a democratic prospect and had been slowly gathering some momentum, but in this political culture, it simply is a bad idea to make yourself known as a socialist under any label. America has always been an exceptional nation.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

I addressed all of that. :shrug:

No you said why many of the Socialists saw members of the CPC as their own. That doesn't put these people in the socialist's ranks. The Neo-Nazis can claim me as their own. That doesn't mean that I'll started heiling any time soon.

OK, then, in simple terms, what's the difference? The DSA doesn't see much of one.

Most call for increased government involvement in our lives and a more mixed economy, but most don't go as far as the socialists.

 

[Ockham]

Dammit. People need to make up their minds. Just exactly WHO is hiding under my bed? Terrorists? Queers? Messkin's? Socialists? Communists? Libruls? N.A.A.C.P.?

They must be having a party under there!

Fear! Fear! Fear!

I get it and I'm shaking in my little space boots!

Nothing to fear about Socialists --- the light of day usually disinfects - just like with the neo-cons. Remember them?

 

[Fiddytree]

Nothing to fear about Socialists --- the light of day usually disinfects - just like with the neo-cons. Remember them?

Which is somewhat of a false interpretation, considering a significant overlap of Neoconservatives with the Republican party status-quo. Neoconservatives were first a minority player during the 1960s and 1970s. Then they had success in the Reagan Administration, before becoming "extinct" with the fall of the Soviet Union and the acceptance of much of their platform during the early 1990s.

Neoconservatives will likely return to prominence in one issue or another sooner or later. American politics does not rid itself of political sensibilities so easily, as we can see with Democratic Socialists and Health Care reform and Libertarians in the rejection of the rising deficit and Democratic Health Care reform.

 

[Harshaw]

OK, I'm good with calling the DSA wrong, if indeed they consider their list of Congresspeople to be socialists. They are wrong, and so are people who are trying to paint the Democrats as socialists. I'm wondering whether they even know what the term really means.

You're wondering if the DSA actually knows what "socialist" means?

I'm guessing that your hypothetical is meaningless.

Not really. But if it makes you feel better to think so . . .

 

[Harshaw]

No you said why many of the Socialists saw members of the CPC as their own. That doesn't put these people in the socialist's ranks. The Neo-Nazis can claim me as their own. That doesn't mean that I'll started heiling any time soon.

You are confused about what I said. I didn't claim it makes them socialist. I only said that just because it's a list of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it doesn't mean the "newsletter" is fake.

Most call for increased government involvement in our lives and a more mixed economy, but most don't go as far as the socialists.

To what degree do they go, and at what point further would they become socialist?

 

[Harshaw]

This thread is very funny to non-Americans, no really. That anyone should be shocked, outraged or defensive about the idea that some Democrats might also consider themselves socialists is fairly chuckleworthy. Is it so outrageous that a political culture could encompass both ends of the political spectrum? Is it noteworthy that there might be political representatives that question (please note, not reject, just question) the hegemony of the free-market economic model? What is it exactly that Americans, almost alone amongst the nations of the World, find the idea of socialism so threatening?

As I said, ask the people who object to the term being applied to them -- or those who reject out of hand that anyone could actually be a socialist.

As for what's so "bad" about "socialism," ask the people in your own country who oppose it. You make it sound like Americans are the only people in the world who disagree with it.

 

[Ockham]

Which is somewhat of a false interpretation, considering a significant overlap of Neoconservatives with the Republican party status-quo.

Direct opposite in fact. The overlap of Socialists with the Democratic part is just as real and just as relevant.

 

[spud_meister]

As I said, ask the people who object to the term being applied to them -- or those who reject out of hand that anyone could actually be a socialist.

As for what's so "bad" about "socialism," ask the people in your own country who oppose it. You make it sound like Americans are the only people in the world who disagree with it.

America's extreme villification of socialism is what's strange, it seems that calling someone a socialist ranks up there with calling 'em a child molester or an Anatidaephobic.

 

[Harshaw]

America's extreme villification of socialism is what's strange, it seems that calling someone a socialist ranks up there with calling 'em a child molester or an Anatidaephobic.

America was also the most significant nation leading other nations in an existential conflict against large-scale socialist states.

Americans also tend to be the people of the world most prickly about things which diminish freedom, which socialism does (whether or not it's beneficial or worth it is an entirely different argument).

Americans tend to be distrustful of government more than most anyone else, and socialism increases government.

But I have no problem if someone wants to call himself/herself a socialist. I do have a problem with stealthiness and dishonesty about it. If you're a socialist, say you're a socialist. Then there won't be confusion.

 

[Fiddytree]

Much like any political culture, spud. In the United States socialism just could not take hold. It does not live up to our civic virtues.

 

[Dittohead not!]

America's extreme villification of socialism is what's strange, it seems that calling someone a socialist ranks up there with calling 'em a child molester or an Anatidaephobic.

OK, that one sent me to the online dictionary:

Anatidaephobia is defined as a pervasive, irrational fear that one is being watched by a duck. The anatidaephobic individual fears that no matter where they are or what they are doing, a duck watches.

Thera are probably a few more socialists in theis country than there are Anatidaephobiacs, but not too many. The problem with shouting "socialist" is that the shouters, not the real socialists as my post above was misenterpreted to say, don't know what the word means.

Online dictionary once again:

so·cial·ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Therefore, the only socialists in Congress are the people who have advocated vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. There really aren't very many who have been elected based on such a philosophy.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

You are confused about what I said. I didn't claim it makes them socialist. I only said that just because it's a list of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it doesn't mean the "newsletter" is fake.

I didn't say that was fake, but to say that the list is saying what Ockham says it is saying is bull****. He came up with a list of socialist congressmen, and they aren't. His list is bull****.

To what degree do they go, and at what point further would they become socialist?

I don't know, but to equate them shows a misunderstanding of both. Libertarians and Conservatives aren't the same.

 

[Harshaw]

I didn't say that was fake, but to say that the list is saying what Ockham says it is saying is bull****. He came up with a list of socialist congressmen, and they aren't. His list is bull****.

Well, if you want to get down to it, you can't make the conclusion that they aren't. You can say the list doesn't show that they are, but neither is it conclusive that they aren't. So, if you're going to be properly logical, you can't make that declaration.

I don't know, but to equate them shows a misunderstanding of both. Libertarians and Conservatives aren't the same.

That's not a good comparison. Even by your own description, where socialists and progressives differ is only in degree. But there's quite a bit of a difference between libertarians and conservatives, on substance.

 

[Captain America]

Nothing to fear about Socialists --- the light of day usually disinfects - just like with the neo-cons. Remember them?

Who can forget them? They're like an Irish relative that never goes away.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Well, if you want to get down to it, you can't make the conclusion that they aren't.
You can say the list doesn't show that they are, but neither is it conclusive that they aren't. So, if you're going to be properly logical, you can't make that declaration.

If you're going to be properly logical, show evidence that they're socialist. I don't care if some outsider considers them one of their own. Show me proof that all or even most of these people believe in socialism, or we'll go on the accepted answer that most of them are not.

That's not a good comparison. Even by your own description, where socialists and progressives differ is only in degree. But there's quite a bit of a difference between libertarians and conservatives, on substance.

No, it is, because they are similar in some respects and different in others. It doesn't matter if the difference is in degrees. They're still not the same thing.

 

[Harshaw]

If you're going to be properly logical, show evidence that they're socialist. I don't care if some outsider considers them one of their own. Show me proof that all or even most of these people believe in socialism, or we'll go on the accepted answer that most of them are not.

I never argued affirmatively that they were. But you're declaring affirmatively that they're not.

But . . . if socialists consider them socialist, then yeah, it does tend to say something about them.

I would, though, find it astonishing that in the group, Bernie Sanders is the only one who considers himself a socialist, even if the others won't actually say so.

No, it is, because they are similar in some respects and different in others.

In what respects, other than degree, are they different? What progressive goal would a socialist not embrace, except that it might not go far enough?

It doesn't matter if the difference is in degrees.

Sure it does, if you're trying to draw an analogy.

 

[Dittohead not!]

But . . . if socialists consider them socialist, then yeah, it does tend to say something about them.

Unless they advocate government ownership of the means of production, who cares what someone considers them to be? They aren't socialists.

 

[Harshaw]

Unless they advocate government ownership of the means of production, who cares what someone considers them to be? They aren't socialists.

Then you have disqualified pretty much every "socialist" system in the Western world. You may want to ask many prominent European socialists what they think of that. There are a number of self-described Euro-socialists this very board.

And you've also explained in detail what exactly is "wrong" or "scary" about socialism, and why Americans are right to reject it outright. :shrug:

 

[Barbbtx]

If you're going to be properly logical, show evidence that they're socialist. I don't care if some outsider considers them one of their own. Show me proof that all or even most of these people believe in socialism, or we'll go on the accepted answer that most of them are not.



No, it is, because they are similar in some respects and different in others. It doesn't matter if the difference is in degrees. They're still not the same thing.

Bernie Sanders openly admits it. Maxine Waters outed herself, at least in my opinion.
Did anyone see her gaff a while back. It was long before the gulf oil spill.
I'll do my best to explain what happened
They were talking about oil companies needing to do something about their huge profits or something like that. She proceeded to say if they didn't then "we will just soc...sociali ...ummm ummmm take over their companies". It was priceless but eye opening.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

I never argued affirmatively that they were. But you're declaring affirmatively that they're not.

I accepted notion is that most of them aren't socialists. It is up to you to prove it.

But . . . if socialists consider them socialist, then yeah, it does tend to say something about them.

It show's that they're probably on the left, but not how left. Of course the socialists have a vested interest to make their ranks look bigger.

I would, though, find it astonishing that in the group, Bernie Sanders is the only one who considers himself a socialist, even if the others won't actually say so.

Never said that he is the only one, but in all likelihood, most aren't.

In what respects, other than degree, are they different? What progressive goal would a socialist not embrace, except that it might not go far enough?

A more mixed economy with less government control than a socialist. Really Harshaw, I shouldn't have to define the difference to a poster as experienced as yourself.

Sure it does, if you're trying to draw an analogy.

The important similarity is that each pair is similar, but not the same. That is the only point of the analogy.