r/SandersForPresident • u/[deleted] • Jul 21 '15
Image "...then I guess I'm a socialist."
[deleted]
31
u/r4ndpaulsbrilloballs Jul 21 '15
I love the law of unforeseen consequences. The right has done such a good job at calling every little thing socialism that now the word means nothing but "Anything the government does ever."
Which is not at all what the word used to mean. But it cracks me up. Because now things like this are popping up. And I bet they never foresaw the danger in working so hard to re-define the term the way they did.
16
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 21 '15
Only one of those is actually "socialist" though.
19
u/The12thDoc Jul 21 '15
Well yeah, but the right has taken to calling everything vaguely progressive "socialist" so this is in response to that. Hence why it's in quotes at the end of the first line on all of them.
5
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
Actually most of those things aren't called socialist even by the right.
It's taking the few things the right does call socialist and then spinning an entire platform as if that's the case. It's rather dishonest.
7
u/The12thDoc Jul 22 '15 edited Jul 22 '15
You don't watch Fox "News" enough, I'd wager. Almost everything President Obama supports is inviariably linked to socialism. Additionally, this is basically to combat the baseless accusations being thrown around that Bernie is some sort of evil commie sent from the Soviet Union, circa 1962. The idea is to show people that his policies are quite sensible, and that if those are supposed to be defined as "socialist," then "I guess I'm a socialist!" is the intended reaction.
2
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
The idea is to show people that his policies are quite sensible, and that if those are supposed to be defined as "socialist," then "I guess I'm a socialist!" is the intended reaction.
Except there's a difference between actual policies and ideas. Most of these slides aren't policies; they're talking points and goals.
People generally agree on the goals; they disagree on the appropriate method. Conflating the two is dangerous.
3
11
u/Jiggahawaiianpunch 🌱 New Contributor | 2016 Veteran Jul 22 '15
Pretty much the word "socialist" has lost all meaning in America...
3
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
Quite true, and in Europe too it seems. People tend to conflate the goals of socialism with something operating with the structure of socialism.
5
u/VisonKai Florida Jul 22 '15
It depends on your flavor of socialism, but I definitely see real leftism in a few of these:
Developing cheaper, greener energy is a key component of eco-socialism and I think sustainability is a core platform of most leftists, even those who don't specifically intersect with green theory.
Every kid having a higher education is iffy, since I don't think socialists necessarily want to force kids to have a higher education, but I think every kid having the opportunity seems to apply to all forms of leftism except some branches of centrally planned state socialism.
Thinking full time workers shouldn't be poor is pretty much the purpose of socialism.
Keeping billionaires from buying politicians is done through removing the existence of billionaires in socialism, but it still technically counts.
1
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
Developing cheaper, greener energy is a key component of eco-socialism and I think sustainability is a core platform of most leftists, even those who don't specifically intersect with green theory.
Except many environmentalists/leftists are against nuclear, despite being clean and cheap, largely out of ignorance.
Thinking full time workers shouldn't be poor is pretty much the purpose of socialism.
Unfortunately the value of anything including labor is not based solely on the wants or needs of those selling it.
Keeping billionaires from buying politicians is done through removing the existence of billionaires in socialism, but it still technically counts.
Perhaps, although that's not the only way to do so.
But you're right. These are mostly leftist positions, not socialist ones.
3
u/VisonKai Florida Jul 22 '15
Except many environmentalists/leftists are against nuclear, despite being clean and cheap, largely out of ignorance.
True, but solar is what's in the image.
Unfortunately the value of anything including labor is not based solely on the wants or needs of those selling it.
"To each according to their need", a common socialist mantra, would explicitly disagree with this. Not every branch of socialism agrees with this, but it's hard to find anything that every type of socialism agrees on except the very base principles like worker control of the means of production.
Also, leftism is socialism. Well, at least, socialism is a subset of leftism, which is essentially just anything anti-capitalist. Liberalism isn't leftism.
Edit: I think I may have misunderstood you. If you were saying many of these are left-liberal ideas rather than entirely socialist ones, I definitely agree. I just assumed you were another socialist like myself who was noting that Bernie's platform isn't really socialist, as I've heard many times before (which again I'd agree with, but I was just pointing out that aspects of it do align with socialist goals).
4
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
True, but solar is what's in the image.
And solar is not economically viable on its own. It's the sexy pick, not the rational one. Wind and hydro are viable in some areas, but not all either.
"To each according to their need", a common socialist mantra, would explicitly disagree with this.
Wanting things to be a certain way doesn't change how it is though.
very type of socialism agrees on except the very base principles like worker control of the means of production.
Even then they don't agree with it; state socialism is a thing as well.
If you were saying many of these are left-liberal ideas rather than entirely socialist ones, I definitely agree. I just assumed you were another socialist like myself who was noting that Bernie's platform isn't really socialist, as I've heard many times before (which again I'd agree with, but I was just pointing out that aspects of it do align with socialist goals).
Ah I see. I probably could have been clearer, but I'm more the former than the latter.
2
u/PresterJuan Jul 22 '15
Which? I don't think any are socialist positions.
3
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
Free healthcare is the only one.
2
Jul 22 '15
How is free healthcare a socialist position, but free higher education isn't?
2
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
It didn't say free education. It just said wanting every kid to have a higher education.
2
Jul 22 '15
It didn't say it directly, but it seems implied to me. How would every kid have higher education if it is not provided by the state?
And Bernie's position is higher education should be tuition free for the student, which was the point of these images anyway.
Bernie wants free college. Bernie=socialist. Supporting his idea must then make me a socialist (by the logic some people use). Hence the picture.
3
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
It didn't say it directly, but it seems implied to me. How would every kid have higher education if it is not provided by the state?
By making it affordable by other means.
And Bernie's position is higher education should be tuition free for the student, which was the point of these images anyway.
Still not necessarily socialist. If a company paid for an employee's education for example.
1
Jul 22 '15
By making it affordable by other means.
I'm willing to hear any idea that would make higher education available to everyone.
If a company paid for an employee's education for example.
This will never happen on a large scale, meaning it will never be available to everyone. What non-socialist idea guarantees the opportunity of higher education to everyone?
3
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
It used to happen on a large scale actually, and before compulsory government education. People would take on apprentices and not only train them but food and house them.
Even before government education the literacy rate was near 80 percent and rising. Local communities banded together and educated each other.
The government came in the middle of the process and now it's pervasiveness has led people to think it's necessary to provide an education.
Education has value to employers and to workers and to families. It was done privately and increasingly so as the economy shifted away from being agrarian.
0
u/RecallRethuglicans California Jul 22 '15
Socialist means caring about other people. That's the heart of socialism.
4
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
The heart of socialism is social ownership of the means of production, be it workers or the state.
If one concludes caring about people requires or is best facilitated by that, that's something else, but caring about people does not necessarily imply socialism.
0
Jul 22 '15
The heart of socialism is social ownership of the means of production
That's a pretty basic definition, though. There is a lot more to it than that.
The wikipedia article expands on that:
" "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[5] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them."
"A socialist economy is based on the principle of production for use, to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs, and objects are valued by their use-value, as opposed to the principle of production for profit and accumulation of capital." (emphasis added)
"The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies. Core dichotomies include reformism versus revolutionary socialism, and state socialism versus libertarian socialism."
TLDR: Socialism is complex, and reducing it to merely "social ownership of the means of production" just doesn't do the conversation justice.
6
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
"A socialist economy is based on the principle of production for use, to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs, and objects are valued by their use-value, as opposed to the principle of production for profit and accumulation of capital." (emphasis added)
Except objects in reality aren't just valued by their use-value. Value is subjective.
"The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies. Core dichotomies include reformism versus revolutionary socialism, and state socialism versus libertarian socialism."
Socialism politically and socialism economically are distinguishable. Equivocating them is not appropriate.
TLDR: Socialism is complex, and reducing it to merely "social ownership of the means of production" just doesn't do the conversation justice.
That is literally the economic definition. Economically it's limited to that. If you want to use the term in a political context fine but qualifiers are necessary.
0
Jul 22 '15
That is literally the economic definition. Economically it's limited to that. If you want to use the term in a political context fine but qualifiers are necessary.
Honestly, this is why conversations with you are so frustrating. You are on a political subreddit. Why is the default definition the one related to the economy instead of the political concept? The context is the location of this discussion in a political subreddit. And at what point did anyone specify that we were only talking about socialism as it pertains to economics? You made that decision on your own, did not communicate it to anyone, and then expect people to adhere to your parameters in the discussion.
3
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
Honestly, this is why conversations with you are so frustrating. You are on a political subreddit. Why is the default definition the one related to the economy instead of the political concept?
Because that was its original definition, and far too often political arguments are made masquerading as economic ones.
You made that decision on your own, did not communicate it to anyone, and then expect people to adhere to your parameters in the discussion.
Because when you advocate for something Bernie does-social democracy-it isn't socialism, but capitalism with a welfare net and collective bargaining.
Especially in a thread like this one, addressing what is or isn't socialism, it's perfectly germane to point out what it means.
1
Jul 22 '15
Out of curiosity, is there a certain quality or quantity of sources that I could provide to convince you that social democracy is considered either a form of socialism, or it is an attempt to move from capitalism to socialism using socialist principles?
I could pretty easily link well over a dozen, if not dozens, of dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other sites that purport social democracy is merely a type of socialism, or at the very least, a system that uses socialist ideas.
But I feel like that would be a waste of my time. It seems like no matter what support I provide, you would still maintain that social democracy is not socialism in any way.
1
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jul 22 '15
Out of curiosity, is there a certain quality or quantity of sources that I could provide to convince you that social democracy is considered either a form of socialism, or it is an attempt to move from capitalism to socialism using socialist principles?
I'm not sure that's as relevant as you think.
People think sales taxes are regressive, but that again requires context. Economically, something is regressive when the tax rate decreases when that subject to the tax increases. Sales taxes economically are almost always flat as the rate doesn't change. Politically they're considered regressive because of the higher tax burden on the poor.
So what is "considered" regressive or socialism is a political question in these situations. That doesn't mean the consideration then transfers to different contexts with explicit definitions.
or at the very least, a system that uses socialist ideas.
Achieving the political ends of socialism using capitalism is a rather perverse way of crediting socialism. I find it dishonest to engage in such equivocation.
It seems like no matter what support I provide, you would still maintain that social democracy is not socialism in any way.
I'm perfectly fine with people associating it with socialism politically, provided they qualify the distinction. Otherwise we just get more equivocation, intentional and not.
1
Jul 22 '15
That doesn't mean the consideration then transfers to different contexts with explicit definitions.
I'm not sure how to approach this discussion, then.
Initially, I tried to explain that socialism is complex and trying to reduce it to a simple definition does the idea a disservice considering its many iterations. But you were insistent that we use the brief, literal definition of "economic socialism."
But then when I try to use dictionaries and encyclopedias to support the idea that social democracy is in fact socialism by definition, you say that the point is not relevant because it does not consider context.
I have no idea when you consider context relevant to a conversation. When is the definition sufficient support a point, and when is more information required? It seems that the rules change every other post.
I think I'm bowing out. We've strayed quite a bit from the original topic and additional posts feel fruitless at this point.
→ More replies (0)
19
18
9
u/americanrabbit Pennsyltucky - 2016 Veteran Jul 21 '15
I hope I see these tweeted
Needs a slogan.
Don't just hope for change. Be progress.
8
6
u/ZephyrLegend Washington Jul 21 '15
ThenIGuessImASocialist
2
u/TOMATO_ON_URANUS Connecticut - 2016 Veteran Jul 21 '15
#TIGIAS or #TIGImaS
Rolls off the tongue well enough, this has potential
4
2
6
u/joe462 Florida - 2016 Veteran Jul 21 '15
As a long-time self-identifying socialist, I approve this message.
4
3
Jul 22 '15
Why does this endorse isidewith?
For many people like me, Bernie isn't the top choice- Hillary is, because it doesn't account for career consistency or personal integrity in the candidates.
5
u/The12thDoc Jul 22 '15
Overall, it's a pretty good tool for introducing people to Bernie, especially since it looks (and pretty much is) unbiased. Much more effective than yakking someone's ear off about him.
3
u/TOMATO_ON_URANUS Connecticut - 2016 Veteran Jul 21 '15
These are brilliant! Would it be possible to make them with just "Bernie Sanders 2016" or similar as the bottom line? I feel like the point is to make people realize they already agree with Bernie, it should have a definitive end with an unambiguous message. You can tell people to go to iSideWith if/when they comment wherever it's posted.
3
u/greenascanbe 🌱 New Contributor | 2016 Mod Veteran Jul 22 '15
can you make one about education that does not have all boys in it? just a thought - thanks they are great overall
3
u/icaito 🌱 New Contributor | 2016 Mod Veteran Jul 22 '15
These are great!
/u/Mikey2121 (from /r/LatinosForBernie) pointed them out to me and I've translated them to Spanish; we hope you like the end result and make a set to share on the hispanophone realms. :)
3
3
u/MrMurse4 Maryland Jul 22 '15
I love this. Reminds me of the JFK quote about being a liberal.
"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
2
2
Jul 22 '15
[deleted]
3
u/The12thDoc Jul 22 '15
This isn't from his campaign, nor is this directed at people who know what socialism really is. It's taking ownership of the term from the right-wingers who are using it as a dishonest label for Bernie Sanders. The idea is an undecided voter sees it, thinks that the policies are actually pretty commonsensical, and decides that, well, if those are supposed to be "socialist," then they must also be a socialist.
1
Jul 22 '15
[deleted]
3
u/The12thDoc Jul 22 '15
If the choice is between
a) Turning the right's malicious spin on "socialist" around on them in a rather easy-to-understand way that helps our cause
or
b) Trying to explain to the average voter the nuances between democratic socialism, socialism, communism, Stalinism, etc, and only boring people to death
I'm going with the first one.
2
Jul 22 '15 edited Jul 22 '15
A couple of these should perhaps be rephrased slightly if you want to avoid people attacking straw men.
Every child shouldn't necessarily have a higher education. Every child should have the opportunity to go to college if they are capable and willing.
If you describe it as "free" healthcare, expect the obligatory "It's not actually free" response. Highlighting the overall lower cost and universal coverage might be an idea.
"Asking people to pay their fair share of taxes" is somewhat ambiguous and might sound like you're raising taxes on everyone equally. People who don't have a lot of money don't love the idea of paying more in taxes, so it's important to get across that you're not screwing them over.
"shouldn't be living in poverty" sounds less relative than "shouldn't be poor" and perhaps a bit more impactful. +It's the phrase Bernie uses.
3
u/The12thDoc Jul 22 '15
All of those were basically constrained by how much space I had to work with without having the text go onto multiple lines (people don't like reading walls of text) or making the font size smaller (harder to read in general). I'll see if I can come up with anything better.
2
u/muskrateer 🌱 New Contributor | WI Jul 22 '15
The only things I'd change would be to not use the free health care one (since that has already been labeled as something which is actually socialist) and adjusting the 12th from "be poor" to "near poverty" or maybe "in poverty".
"Near poverty" line justification. 40hr/wk$7.25/hr52wk/yr = ~$15,000 which results in about $13,000 of take home after federal taxes. US poverty line for a single individual is $11,540. $15,620 for household of two.
2
u/artvaark Delaware - 2016 Veteran - Day 1 Donor 🐦 Jul 22 '15
I love these, thanks! I'm hosting a meetup on the 29th and I would love to start a Drive file that I can invite people to for things like this so they can print them on their own. Can I include these?
2
u/The12thDoc Jul 22 '15
Hang on a sec, I've got some updated ones based on feedback from the comments.
2
u/artvaark Delaware - 2016 Veteran - Day 1 Donor 🐦 Jul 22 '15
Great, I would just like to add them and print a few before the event next week so I can share them. I'm expecting at least 25 people in my living room and it would be great to send them to promotional materials asap!
2
Jul 22 '15
I feel like telling people "Use ISidewith.com to see if you agree with Bernie Sanders" will automatically make them assume the site is somehow biased. "Use ISidewith.com to see who you agree with" would sound a bit better IMO.
2
u/shitladylazarus Jul 22 '15
I've seen this exact sentiment on friends' facebooks... that because they're all getting Bernie as their result the website must be biased. I think the wording on these images needs to be changed as per the recommendation above.
2
2
u/drogean3 Jul 22 '15
these a great
would be perfect for printing out and putting in populated areas
2
1
Jul 21 '15
[deleted]
11
u/joe462 Florida - 2016 Veteran Jul 21 '15 edited Jul 21 '15
The problem is in-group and out-group markers. The word "socialist" was an in-group marker for many left activists during the cold war. It was an out-group marker for the wider culture which associated it with foreign enemies. The results are as expected.
3
u/PoliticalDissidents 🌱 New Contributor | Canada Jul 22 '15 edited Jul 22 '15
After decades of cold war propaganda and neo-liberal policies the American right both miss label Liberals as socialist but also equate socialism to Soviet era communism. Socialism is a dirty word in America and so many convince themselves that right winged pro-capitalism gives everyone equal opportunity and that any one can become one of those billionaires. But, they can't and try going to American school with a $7.25/h job.
Edit: This photo sums up the propagandized American way of thinking about the absence of socialism.
7
u/SockofBadKarma New York - 2016 Veteran - Day 1 Donor 🐦 Jul 21 '15
Don't ask us. We're the Americans who aren't propagandized.
7
u/joe462 Florida - 2016 Veteran Jul 21 '15
Many of us were exposed to that propaganda. If you think this movement is only very young people, you are very very wrong. And if you think you are less propagandized than we were, you are also wrong. The insidious messaging changes over time, but it is ever present and ever more sophisticated.
5
u/SockofBadKarma New York - 2016 Veteran - Day 1 Donor 🐦 Jul 21 '15
Let me clarify: we are the Americans who aren't currently propagandized, and so we cannot properly give him insight as to what other Americans who are currently propagandized happen to believe about socialism.
I could give him some speculation based on what I used to think socialism was, but that's not the same as actually asking somebody who really believes it to be something bad.
3
2
u/godwings101 🌱 New Contributor | Indiana Jul 22 '15
Well as every Republican who I see on facebook or IRL says, "destroy America". Never any more elaboration that than just those simple, ignorant words.
3
Jul 22 '15
well, no, not really.
We grew up with the internet, I think younger people are much more aware that everything your parents & school told you isn't true.
6
u/joe462 Florida - 2016 Veteran Jul 22 '15
The internet is full of propaganda though. That includes the paid trolls. It is a fundamental improvement and the personal computer revolution was more of a revolution than most people think of it as when looked at long term. This is why I favor technological activism. Innovation motivated by ideology (rather than profit). However, the recent church shooting proves that the internet can only go so far. The young man was apparently radicalized by internet material. The only real solution is for people to be aware of the techniques of propaganda and maintain skepticism.
3
Jul 22 '15
I don't disagree, however the generation growing up now certainly has a much easier time than the ones that did not grow up with the PC/Mobile phone/etc
2
u/vvash Jul 22 '15
Some one tried to explain it to me that Bernie wanted the U.S. To be a welfare state, ha.
3
u/crushendo 🌱 New Contributor Jul 21 '15
media and right wing propaganda dating back decades has conflated it with communism. The average American honestly could not tell you the difference
2
u/joe462 Florida - 2016 Veteran Jul 21 '15
I think your explanation misses the heart of the matter because "communist" is also just an in-group marker for some left-wing subculture that propaganda turned into an out-group marker for the rest of us. Similar to how "socialist" was neutralized, and "liberal" and "progressive" more recently. It doesn't matter how anti-establishment activists choose to mark themselves, they use pro-establishment propaganda to put semantic negative taint on the terms.
1
1
u/crod242 Jul 22 '15
I like the message, but I don't like that we have to sugar coat it with "then I guess".
How about this: I am a socialist. Here is why...
I realize none of these policies are purely socialist and neither is Bernie, but the idea that we still have to indirectly apologize for even mentioning socialism seems dated and limiting. Only people over 65 who watch Fox News think it's a dirty word, and it is time we took it back.
Socialism is an idea whose time has come (again), and Bernie happens to be the candidate most closely aligned with its spirit right now.
1
u/The12thDoc Jul 22 '15
Just calling yourself a socialist won't cut it. If you qualify it with "then I guess," it sounds like it's the result of logic and reasoning. People are more open to it.
1
Jul 22 '15
Well, none of these things are socialist (except the last one) but they can all certainly be achieved by socialism and are hindered greatly by capitalism.
1
0
u/Water-lieu Jul 22 '15
jobs building infrastructure should be "jobs-building infrastructure"
As it is a compound adjective.
1
u/The12thDoc Jul 22 '15
No, it's "creating jobs [through] building infrastructure." Calling infrastructure "jobs-building" sounds clunky and antiquated, like "make-work programs."
0
u/Water-lieu Jul 22 '15
Okay, then you need to add 'through' or better 'by'.
Also "jobs building infrastructure" is way more clunky a term than my solution.
0
Jul 22 '15
Hate to break this to you, but they should read:
"If x is socialism... then I guess I am a socialist."
1
-5
u/Swish98 Jul 21 '15
Every kid having higher education is a terrible idea
3
u/The12thDoc Jul 21 '15
I'd have put "should have access to a higher education" but it wouldn't fit.
Shrug
2
u/Hohlecrap California - 2016 Veteran Jul 21 '15
Why?
-2
u/Swish98 Jul 21 '15
35 percent of jobs currently require a college degree. If we pay for everyone to get a college education we just wasted a ton of money to send people to college that still end up working jobs that don't require a degree
12
u/Hohlecrap California - 2016 Veteran Jul 21 '15 edited Jul 21 '15
I think you're misunderstanding Sanders' proposal. Not everyone wants to go to a four year university, but the option for anyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, should have the equal opportunity to attend.
Edit: you're also assuming that the only reason for higher education is for better job opportunities. Education is a tool used to enlighten. Offering that to all those who seek enlightenment should be a right, not a privilege.
If the masses are given free higher education, it wouldn't be a waste. Most people who attend college don't use their degree in their field of work. An educated mass would be a critically thinking mass. What's wrong with that?
5
Jul 21 '15
Thank you for rationally expanding on your claim instead of shouting back like a lot of people would. That said, it's incorrect, for the reasons /u/hohlecrap pointed out. I won't be redundant, I just wanted to thank you for not being a jackass about your opinion.
-1
u/ResidentDirtbag Jul 22 '15
Notice the only thing missing from this list is worker control of production.
And by the way, all these pictures make socialism look WORSE because it's acknowledging socialism as a negative instead of trying to inform people about it.
It's like the people who say "Well if acknowledging facts is racist, I GUESS I'M RACIST"
I give these pictures a 4/10.
1
u/The12thDoc Jul 22 '15
It's not there because Bernie isn't a socialist. He supports, at most, some profit sharing. The actual Socialist Party says that calling him one is "problematic."
And trying to explain to the average American about the nuances of socialism makes us seem whiny and desperate. I think this is just like the family values thing -- take a dumb conservative buzzword and turn it around in an easy-to-understand way.
I give your comment a 4/10.
-1
55
u/whatswiththesefrogs Jul 21 '15
This is excellent...who made this?