The New Socialists

[Highland Deac]

you are like the idiot who joins the National Socialists because he wants the trains to run on time

You do realize that pretty much every American progressive or liberal since Teddy Roosevelt has advocated for an expanded social safety net such as Social Security and Medicare, more government regulation (not control or ownership, but regulation) of corporations, protections for workers and the environment, guaranteed healthcare, etc. without ever becoming a Nazi or a Communist or even a classic Socialist? By your standards FDR was prime candidate to be a Nazi, yet he somehow helped lead the fight to crush the Nazis. I know this is shocking to some right-wingers, but it is possible to have "the trains run on time" without being a Communist or a Nazi or a classic Socialist. In America the progressive movement of a century ago came out of the Social Gospel, which in turn was based on many of the teachings of Christ. You and your ilk seem to subscribe more to the Social Darwinism side of things.

 

[Gooner]

So then why do you call yourselves socialist and say things like the era of capitalism is over?

I have never once called myself socialist. You right wingers do. I am not a socialist, I am not even really a democratic socialist (I’d never pass MDMH or MHB’s scrutiny).

 

[MHBDemon]

You do realize that pretty much every American progressive or liberal since Teddy Roosevelt has advocated for an expanded social safety net such as Social Security and Medicare, more government regulation (not control or ownership, but regulation) of corporations, protections for workers and the environment, guaranteed healthcare, etc. without ever becoming a Nazi or a Communist or even a classic Socialist? By your standards FDR was prime candidate to be a Nazi, yet he somehow helped lead the fight to crush the Nazis. I know this is shocking to some right-wingers, but it is possible to have "the trains run on time" without being a Communist or a Nazi or a classic Socialist. In America the progressive movement of a century ago came out of the Social Gospel, which in turn was based on many of the teachings of Christ. You and your ilk seem to subscribe more to the Social Darwinism side of things.

Dude I don't think you intended it this way, but this is a bad post. It totally erases the role that actual socialists and communists played in the labor/civil rights movements to win all those progressive policies. And many of the people that probably fought for those things, did become communists or socialists. I met a ~55 yo union railroad worker yesterday who was at a Medicare for All event because his union had endorsed medicare for all. He told me he considered himself a revolutionary socialist.

 

[MHBDemon]

I have never once called myself socialist. You right wingers do. I am not a socialist, I am not even really a democratic socialist (I’d never pass MDMH or MHB’s scrutiny).

You don't have to pass my scrutiny. I have never claimed to be any gatekeeper. "Do you support DSA's agenda?" would be a better test.

 

[Highland Deac]

Dude I don't think you intended it this way, but this is a bad post. It totally erases the role that actual socialists and communists played in the labor/civil rights movements to win all those progressive policies. And many of the people that probably fought for those things, did become communists or socialists. I met a ~55 yo union railroad worker yesterday who was at a Medicare for All event because his union had endorsed medicare for all. He told me he considered himself a revolutionary socialist.

I'm well aware of the role that they played, but I think you greatly exaggerate the role that socialists and communists played in the passage of most of those bills. The great majority of those folks did not become communists or socialists. None of the political leaders I mentioned were socialists or communists. Certainly the Socialist Party in the Progressive Era had some influence, but even then they never received more than six percent of the total national vote (in the 1912 campaign with Eugene V. Debs). With all respect I think you tend to exaggerate the numbers of socialists and communists in the USA, both now and historically, including among the working class. I'm not saying they didn't play a role in the progressive policies over the past century, but it's not to the extent that you seem to presume. Both major political parties routinely take ideas from smaller parties and add them to their agenda, but it doesn't mean they become socialist or communist or whatever. They did play a role, but not the dominant one.

 

[Gooner]

You don't have to pass my scrutiny. I have never claimed to be any gatekeeper. "Do you support DSA's agenda?" would be a better test.

The parenthetical was meant to be tongue in cheek

 

[MHBDemon]

I'm well aware of the role that they played, but I think you greatly exaggerate the role that socialists and communists played in the passage of most of those bills. The great majority of those folks did not become communists or socialists. None of the political leaders I mentioned were socialists or communists. Certainly the Socialist Party in the Progressive Era had some influence, but even then they never received more than six percent of the total national vote (in the 1912 campaign with Eugene V. Debs). With all respect I think you tend to exaggerate the numbers of socialists and communists in the USA, both now and historically, including among the working class. I'm not saying they didn't play a role in the progressive policies over the past century, but it's not to the extent that you seem to presume. Both major political parties routinely take ideas from smaller parties and add them to their agenda, but it doesn't mean they become socialist or communist or whatever. They did play a role, but not the dominant one.

I'm clearly not talking about electoral representation. I'm talking about the general influence of marxist traditions in the labor movement/civil rights movement that have undoubtedly shaped the progressive movements in this country. You are doing the liberal thing of attaching the significance of a revolutionary victory (abolition) to the head of govt, rather than to the abolitionists. Abolitionists won that victory. If we win Medicare for All, it will be because of socialists, union organizers, and progressives. It won't be because of Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi.

And I'm well aware of the lack of actual socialists now. I try to recruit for a socialist org in a red state. But I think that has a lot to do with decades of red scare propaganda and the assassination of political leaders/infiltration of leftist groups, than I do because working class can't get down with socialism.

 

[Highland Deac]

I'm clearly not talking about electoral representation. I'm talking about the general influence of marxist traditions in the labor movement/civil rights movement that have undoubtedly shaped the progressive movements in this country. You are doing the liberal thing of attaching the significance of a revolutionary victory (abolition) to the head of govt, rather than to the abolitionists. Abolitionists won that victory. If we win Medicare for All, it will be because of socialists, union organizers, and progressives. It won't be because of Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi.

And I'm well aware of the lack of actual socialists now. I try to recruit for a socialist org in a red state. But I think that has a lot to do with decades of red scare propaganda and the assassination of political leaders/infiltration of leftist groups, than I do because working class can't get down with socialism.

Again, I have read about and know about the Marxist/Socialist/Communist leanings of some (not a majority) of labor union leaders and members. Abolitionism may have started out as a fringe political movement, but it steadily grew in power and numbers throughout the 1850s until abolitionists became a powerful faction within the Republican Party, and thus had great influence over the government. They had far more political and economic clout than American socialists or communists ever did in the twentieth century. From my readings I think it's pretty clear that liberals, not socialists or communists, were the dominant force in getting progressive legislation submitted and enacted into law from the Progressive Era up through the 1960s, although American socialists certainly helped drive the initial push for some reforms and legislation, and led labor strikes and other protests that pressured Democrats (and some Republicans like TR) to push for progressive legislation. I simply don't agree that they played the dominant role.

 

[MHBDemon]

Ok. I never said they played "the dominant role" but your initial post clearly erased any role at all. It also implied becoming an actual communist or socialists as a "scary icky" thing. I'm not sure how you would support the claim that "it's pretty clear that liberals, not socialists or communists, were the dominant force in getting progressive legislation submitted and enacted into law from the Progressive Era up through the 1960s" but I'd be down to read some of the history.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I have never once called myself socialist. You right wingers do. I am not a socialist, I am not even really a democratic socialist (I’d never pass MDMH or MHB’s scrutiny).

If any post ever defined the futility of the modern Democratic Party, it's that one. Hey, don't worry. You just got to get a little bit more conservative and pragmatic and Republicans will stop calling you a socialist.

 

[Gooner]

If any post ever defined the futility of the modern Democratic Party, it's that one. Hey, don't worry. You just got to get a little bit more conservative and pragmatic and Republicans will stop calling you a socialist.

Lol did you not see what I replied to MHB

 

[sailordeac]

Do feudalism next !

as far as government is concerned, under feudalism what we might normally think of as public or government functions are exercised under private contract

and as with everything else significant in the Middle Ages, feudalism derived elements from the civilizations of classical antiquity, Judeo-Christianity, and that of the Germanic barbarians

you're welcome

 

[Highland Deac]

Ok. I never said they played "the dominant role" but your initial post clearly erased any role at all. It also implied becoming an actual communist or socialists as a "scary icky" thing. I'm not sure how you would support the claim that "it's pretty clear that liberals, not socialists or communists, were the dominant force in getting progressive legislation submitted and enacted into law from the Progressive Era up through the 1960s" but I'd be down to read some of the history.

The reason I didn't get into the details about socialism or communism in America in the first post is because I was replying to a point in someone else's post, and didn't feel the need to get into a detailed discussion of the roles that various groups played in progressive reforms in the twentieth century, especially as that particular poster wouldn't have cared about such a point.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

The real horseshoe theory is Republicans and leftists both agreeing that late night comedy and SNL have become dogshit in the Trump era.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Lol did you not see what I replied to MHB

I saw it. I'm not referring to whatever hypothetical standards I may have, i'm referring to your denials to catamount that you aren't a socialist. Its unbelievable how much political capital has been wasted by Democrats in vain, attempting to reason with conservatives, and prove their moderation.

I mean, have you seen the backwards shit that Catamount posts here? Why the hell do you care whether he calls you a socialist? Imagine how far you'd have to move, ideologically, to reason with catamount. IMO it would be embarrassing for you if catamount didnt consider you a socialist.

 

[Gooner]

I saw it. I'm not referring to whatever hypothetical standards I may have, i'm referring to your denials to catamount that you aren't a socialist. Its unbelievable how much political capital has been wasted by Democrats in vain, attempting to reason with conservatives, and prove their moderation.

I mean, have you seen the backwards shit that Catamount posts here? Why the hell do you care whether he calls you a socialist? Imagine how far you'd have to move, ideologically, to reason with catamount. IMO it would be embarrassing for you if catamount didnt consider you a socialist.

I don’t care that anyone calls me a socialist. I just am not one. And the only people that are calling non-socialists socialists are right wingers. Which is what I said.

I am as far from moderate as can be, I feel I have been pretty consistent in that regard. I seek nothing from conservatives, and especially not their approval.

 

[Deacfreak07]

The real horseshoe theory is Republicans and leftists both agreeing that late night comedy and SNL have become dogshit in the Trump era.

:squint:

SNL has been pretty damn good lately.

 

[PhDeac]

:squint:

SNL has been pretty damn good lately.

Yeah. All but overdoing the Trump stuff. The lady Dems in white sketch was pretty good. Villasenor’s AOC has gotten better.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Yeah. All but overdoing the Trump stuff. The lady Dems in white sketch was pretty good. Villasenor’s AOC has gotten better.

You can’t not do the Trump stuff. Baldwin is grating, and his impression was never meant to have this kind of shelf life, but the big issue is the truth might more absurd that sketch comedy can handle.

Update is about as good right now as it has been since I starting watching with Norm.

 

[PhDeac]

Oh yeah. Trump hands them this stuff on a platter. It’s hard not to. I saw Lewis Black perform last year. He opened his set explaining that he got his start in New York in the 80s. He’s been telling Trump jokes his whole career and he’s tired of it.

The big issue for SNL is that they helped sell Trump to the public along with several other NBC properties including The Apprentice itself.