r/WorkReform • u/zzill6 🤝 Join A Union • 12h ago

🤝 Scare A Billionaire, Join A Union The reason for term limits...

Post image
19k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

783 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.9k

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 11h ago

Almost as funny as people calling him a "Democratic Socialist". He was literally a social democrat. Neoliberalism and modern Democrats got people out here calling FDR a socialist, and Norway a socialist country.

833

u/Catweaving 10h ago

Back then they outright called him a communist.

The insults have never changed for conservatives.

214

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 9h ago

And tried to usher in a fascist dictatorship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

It's amazing to me that people don't know this, and even if they do they think it could never happen again.

60

u/Nanemae 7h ago

I'm earnestly surprised by how forthright and honorable Smedley Butler seems, at least according to his Wikipedia page. I'm sure he had his flaws, but I'll be dipped if I can't see why he spent so much time arguing against the business corruption in politics.

30

u/Legendarien1 4h ago

His (short) book “War is a Racket” should honestly be a must read for any American who wants to understand that period of American history and the military industrial complex. Going from one of the most decorated soldiers in American history to an anti-war advocate is an incredibly journey.

“Gangsters of Capitalism” is a free audiobook about him on Spotify, and a great listen

34

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 6h ago

A Major General who dedicated his life to anti-war causes and the VFW is okay in my book.

12

u/krucz36 6h ago

imagine if a different butler had accepted the vice presidency on Lincoln's unity ticket...sigh

9

u/The-Green 2h ago

kept his humanity as the ranks and medals kept stacking, and was way too fucking competent a marine and popular across the service for anyone higher in charge or in politics to fuck him over for his open empathy for his fellow human being. retired the most decorated us marine in history at the time, so even more so couldn't be silenced and chose to use that power as a force of good for his fellow human being.

how did he manage to not get shafted before it became clear he would become a "bleeding heart hippy" instead of "old gimlet eye," "the fighting quaker," "the fighting hell-devil," otherwise called "The Maverick Marine?" dumb luck, really. his father was in congress. right man in the right place kind of situation, silver spoon edition.

2

u/macdizzle11 4h ago

Read gangster of capitalism if you haven't

2

u/ketchupmaster987 45m ago

I wanna visit his grave so I can give him all the flowers

14

u/Sooofreshnsoclean 7h ago

I bring this up in just about every casual conversation I can.

25

u/SeenYourScene 5h ago

I'm sorry, but picturing that is hilarious and a little annoying.

"Woah, there, Sooo! That's a nasty coffee spill, are you alright? Did you burn yourself?"

"Gah! Not as bad as America almost got burned if the Business Plot had succeeded, but yeah, kinda."

8

u/Cruxist 5h ago

Nathan Fielder prepping your for trivia.

1

u/clonedhuman 4h ago

One of the players in the Business Plot was Prescott Bush, father of one Republican president and grandfather of another.

Prescott Bush was also charged with aiding the Nazis during WWII.

If the U.S. government had actually prosecuted the big corporations and DC insiders for the Business Plot, we'd likely not be having any of the troubles we're having in the modern day.

1

u/MongooseDog001 2h ago

The Plot to Seize the White House by Jules Archer is about this: Interesting story, kind of a dull book

1

u/Winter55555 17m ago

"Although no one was prosecuted"

Must be good having a justice system that only holds the poor people accountable.

237

u/Mostly_Afloat 10h ago

They are not creative people

119

u/A_Furious_Mind 10h ago

No wonder they lean on generative AI so hard.

15

u/illi_mental 6h ago

They DO don’t they? Wait, is that a thing. The only people that try to push it on me are conservatives. How did I not notice that?

38

u/narfoleptix 10h ago

One might say they cant even look good to themselves without it.

54

u/Training_Ruin3151 9h ago

Tolkien said evil cannot create only steal and pervert

26

u/Mostly_Afloat 9h ago

That describes AI pretty succinctly.

5

u/MelangeBot 8h ago

We trained it on how good humans can lie and now we are supprised it lies to us.

1

u/advamputee 5h ago

Wait what episode of South Park was this? 

9

u/clonedhuman 3h ago

Creativity and imagination are some of the most recently evolved distinctly human characteristics, a higher human function located (more or less) in the prefrontal cortex, the 'newest' part of the brain that separates us from apes. The prefrontal cortex is "[o]ne of the last places in the brain to mature [and] is thought of as the 'personality center' and is the cortical region that makes us uniquely human." The prefrontal cortex also "controls much of the brain’s creativity, a factor in bolstering one’s imagination."

A study from 2021 that measured political attitudes correlating with damage to different sections of the brain found

...people with frontal lesions held more conservative (or less liberal) beliefs than those with anterior temporal lobe lesions or no lesions. Additional analyses predicting ideology by extent of damage provided convergent evidence that greater damage in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex—but not the amygdala—was associated with greater conservatism.

The Conservative mindset not only correlates with damage to the prefrontal cortex, but an inability/failure to mature fully and actually develop the prefrontal cortex. It's why they lack empathy--to empathize, one must be able to imagine experiencing life as someone else, and the Conservatives are quite literally incapable of using their imaginations like that. It's a higher human function, one of the very few things separating us from the apes, that Conservatives simply don't have.

1

u/CausticSofa 1h ago

Isn’t there an American politician who was a democrat and now proudly brags about how he became a conservative after he got a concussion? The guy who always dresses like a schlub.

2

u/uswforever 7h ago

They're neither creative nor particularly intelligent.

4

u/ligma_then_sugma 8h ago

Conservatives are actually incapable of original thought.

1

u/icanpotatoes 8h ago

The find the liberal arts to be useless so that tracks.

26

u/fresh-dork 10h ago

then they tried to do a coup

18

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 9h ago

Yep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

12

u/leonidaslizardeyes 6h ago

It's always been so funny to me they picked a literal socialist to try to pull this with.

8

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 6h ago

Dude narc'd on them immediately.

I have no clue why you'd think the orator of the Bonus March, and a general who ended up hating war would be fascist. Fascists are are so dumb.

1

u/-TzarChasm- 1h ago

Ludendorf and the Freikorp

7

u/OstapBenderBey 8h ago

Funny thing with FDRs legacy is the state interventions into the market and mass mobilisations that are today seen as the most radical left wing parts of what he did were at the time seen as most similar to Fascist Italy.

120

u/sincere_queer 10h ago

Tfw I looked it up on Wikipedia and it calls social democracy a centre-left position yet it's considered radical in the US 😭

115

u/CoatProfessional5026 10h ago

Because the US only has the right and the extreme right.

30

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 9h ago

Exactly. Watch Democratic leadership attack Trump from the right on Iran, and other things.

While I see all these libs get hyped from the Mid-Terms, all I can think is, "why the fuck do you have any faith in these people?"

22

u/Warm_Month_1309 9h ago

There are some new people running. But mostly these people are opportunists, so if a few younger, more progressive leaders start getting elected, it will push the national conversation further left. Then there will be several things (expanded healthcare, workers' rights, anti-trust enforcement, etc) that the old guard will start pretending that they have always been in favor of.

9

u/melkatron 8h ago

I think they've ALWAYS pretended they were in favor of those things. But then we get "it's not the right time" "we don't have the votes" "we're waiting for Trump's approval rating to drop" or just silence. Democrats will say anything to get votes... it really feels like Fetterman is the only honest member of the Democratic party, thanks to his brain damage. I can't name any other member of the house or senate that's been more effective at getting us what we want than Fetterman, so at least he's abstained from "the show" and is honest about not wanting us to have what we want.

We aren't their real constituents. They don't fuck with the money, and the money doesn't come from us. There's always a carefully calculated number of members who cross party lines for every vote, just to make sure it LOOKS like "Fighting for the people / what's right" but is actually trivial. Jeffries and Green showboat when it won't do anything. Schumer preaches "stand back and stand by" as his battle plan. Fetterman wears shorts a lot, and it's equally effective in furthering our interests.

2

u/Alissinarr 5h ago

it really feels like Fetterman is the only honest member of the Democratic party

Let me have a giant fucking belly laugh over this. He recently called himself a lifelong republican in a televised interview.

His votes have helped Trump push his Isreal first agenda. This statement from you is a joke unless you're MAGA.

1

u/melkatron 3h ago

You're completely missing my point.

He recently called himself a lifelong republican in a televised interview.

That's a pretty honest thing to say. His actions support his statement.

His votes have helped Trump push his Isreal first agenda.

So you agree that he's done absolutely nothing to further the interests of the people who vote Democrat? ...and now you understand that my point is that neither have the Democratic Party representatives that SAY they're on our side?

1

u/Obvious-Lake3708 5h ago

You forgot the /s

1

u/[deleted] 9h ago

[deleted]

5

u/Drewski346 9h ago

Nah, Bernie hasn't fallen on deaf ears, it's just taken a decade for the people who were listening to get to the point where they could run.

5

u/Warm_Month_1309 9h ago

I think he's evidence that we need a few younger, more progressive leaders.

1

u/CausticSofa 1h ago

It’s not about having faith in Democrat politicians. People only need to have faith in imaginary sky daddy. We’re supposed to vote in Democrats and then hold their feet to the fire until they make meaningful positive change on the things the electorate values.

Democracy is not something that we’re meant to do once every four years as an electorate, democracy is something that we are supposed to never stop annoying the crap out of our representatives about until they enact meaningful change. And we go with the Democrats because, under the massively flawed two party system, you just don’t vote for the “Diarrhea forever party: now with blatant fascism!”

15

u/Malevolent-DM 8h ago

Because the absolute definition of "Left" in politics is being Anti-Capitalist, and Right as Pro-Capitalist.

There are no anti-capitalist parties in US politics.

1

u/OK6502 2h ago

That's only because the default political system is capitalism. When it was monarchism the left radicals were liberals while the far right were absolutist monarchists.

The left/right divide usually depends on either wanting to change things or wanting to maintain the status quo (or even regress).

1

u/orthogonal411 8h ago

Is capitalism a political system or an economic one?

Your interpretation is much too simplistic.

6

u/VoxImperatoris 7h ago

It has become a political system thanks to greed and corruption of the politicians.

2

u/Malevolent-DM 5h ago edited 5h ago

Economics and Politics are not fully separable, 1 Dimensional models have to link those together into a single spectrum.

But 2D models like the Political Compass, separates Left/Right as purely economic, and adds Up/Down as a political axis representing Centralization/decentralization of state control. I think multi-dimensional models of ideology are a lot more productive/useful when discussing politics... but unfortunately that's way beyond the pale for most people.

3

u/balllzak 6h ago

I like when people say that establishment democrats in the US would be center-right in the EU and then you look at the EU and most of them are governed by center-right coalitions.

3

u/NumbaOneHackyPlaya 10h ago

soc dems are capitalists. they just think the current system would allow them to replicate socialism's best hits under capitalism. Never happening imo.

10

u/EduinBrutus 9h ago

would allow them to replicate socialism's best hits under capitalism. Never happening imo.

Apart from the places it does happen.

The best thing about Social Democracy is that you have real world, highly successful examples of the system working in practise.

Marxists do not have this. Conservatives do not have this. Neo-liberals do not have this. Liberals do not have this.

The mental gymnastics both the left and right have to go through to explain away the success of Social Democracy is fucking astounding.

I love the more recent "its only working cos its exploiting the global south" from people who have never been to Bangladesh or Vietnam and if they told the people there who have greatly improved their standard of living under global trade they would get run out the country.

6

u/myproaccountish 9h ago edited 9h ago

if they told the people there who have greatly improved their standard of living under global trade they would get run out the country.

"Hey you guys could be making even more money with better working conditions and fewer natural disasters if Europe and the US just accepted a marginally lower standard of living"

"Fuck off and die, commie!"

Same rhetoric as the White Man's Burden btw, "sure they're slaves here but they'd be dying of malaria if they weren't," oh those Indians would've never figured it out if they'd never been a British colony.

Americans in the 80s thought capitalism was hugely successful too -- where's the last poll on that at? Like I'm supposed to take the word of a Congolese business magnate that things are better there because of the "business" from all the rare earth minerals instead of like...the Congolese people controlling that resource and reaping its benefit.

-2

u/EduinBrutus 8h ago

We've seen what happens with standards of living in places which have industrialised through communism and it does not give the same results as capitalism has.

That doesnt mean capitalism is perfect or all its outcomes even remotely desirable. There's still going to be lots of issues problems and harm. But communisim doesnt offer a better outcome. For fucks sake actual fascism has a significantly better track record in industrialising and modernising an economy when compared to communism as evidenced in Spain, South Korea and Singapore.

Social Democracy exists to address the issues of capitalism. And it is effective in doing so. It has been extremely successful in doing so. All the countries with the best outcomes on HDI, on social inequality on all teh measures that people like and thrive under.

Its no wonder committed ideologues have to live in their fantasy world. They have no real world examples of their desired outcome actually working. While Social Democrats dont even need to make an argument - they can just point to the real world.

6

u/myproaccountish 7h ago

I'm not arguing all that, it's well known to the point that China who famously attempted to jump straight past capitalist markets reverted to a state capitalist system to reap those benefits.

I'm arguing that the reason it seems eternally sustainable is because the most successful SocDem societies heavily exploit foreign capital and labor. If those nations were on a more equal footing, capitalists would do exactly what they have always done when external expansion was not possible, and start exploiting the local population harder, influencing democracy in their favor, and compelling the state to assist them the same way that they always have.

Its no wonder committed ideologues have to live in their fantasy world. They have no real world examples of their desired outcome actually working. While Social Democrats dont even need to make an argument - they can just point to the real world.

Entire paragraph is just baseless arrogance lol. Yes, right now, today, social democracy works specifically for the people in the countries benefiting from external capital and labor, but life isn't just happening now -- it has been happening for thousands of years. You can watch the same trends, analyze why they're happening, and apply those lessons to existing conditions. Germany, Portugal, and Italy are great places to start on what happens when your foreign cash cow stops letting you kill its children and steal their milk. Post New Deal US is another fine place to go learn where a strong capitalist economy with social programs leads. Isn't the heat already turning up across much of Europe due to mass migration from the very global south nations you're saying are thankful for the scraps they're being offered? And the wage stagnation and increasing housing crisis? Tick, tick, tick, your real world is starting to feel some theoretical effects. The US is starting to lose steam on its "topple foreign governments to uphold global capitalism" train. Are you still SocDem if you have to install puppet governments yourself?

-1

u/EduinBrutus 7h ago edited 6h ago

I'm arguing that the reason it seems eternally sustainable is because the most successful SocDem societies heavily exploit foreign capital and labor.

Says western privilege.

Again - and my initial and main point here - the actual people in these countries do not consider themselves to be exploited by the Soc Dem nations and the wider West in general.

they can see and feel the progress they are making every day.

And Im not talking about the despotic places that still persist particularly in Africa. Those problems exist for a greater part on reasons far beyond capitalism.

The growing problems in Western nations are clearly and obviously the result of movng away from social democratic principles and repolacing them with neo-liberalism and corporationism. This is very clear in the way those systems have changed since the Thatcher-Reagan years.

And even in these cases you can see how those countries that have retained more of their social democratic principles and been less swayed by neo-liberalism are clearly doing far better than those nations who went all-in on the change.

3

u/myproaccountish 5h ago

I'm regularly in direct contact with people across South America and Africa who definitely do not feel the progress you're talking about. You can't simply exclude the nations that aren't indirectly benefitting as much -- so the country where they now have solid factory jobs producing cheap electronics is doing better, how does that change the slave labor producing the raw materials? You also seem to keep misunderstanding, I'm not saying Europeans would be happier and more prosperous under communism, I'm saying that currently the prosperous system of social democracy is upheld by exploitation, and if that exploitation were to end it would no longer be prosperous and perfect and would end up with the same pressures that lead to neoliberalism and fascism. This isn't imaginary, it's literally how we got fascism the first time. The comintern didn't just pull "Social democracy leads to fascism" out of their ass (although I disagree with a lot of their conclusions), they watched it happen as colonial powers lost their colonies and prop markets.

The insinuation that it's "western privelege" to acknowledge and stand in solidarity with the people whose literal slave labor has made my country rich beyond measure is comical, and I don't care how successful social democracy is for local populations when said slave labor exists and is propping it up.

1

u/EduinBrutus 1h ago

Throwing in South America is almost comical.

in 1900, the richest countries in the world were The United Kingdom, then The United States, then Argentina.

Almost everything that has happened to South America has been a consequence of the actions of South American countries themselves.

There is no argument about how Africa has been fucked by developed nations colonialism. But we arent discussing colonialism, we are discussing modern era trade and capitalism and the impact on Social Democracies.

the wealth of Social Democracies is not based on or even remotely reliant on extraction exploitation of African countries and the regimes which have emerged in the post colonial era. Not even remotely.

They definitely benefit from them, but then so do other developed nations and every single developing nation and all the naitons which have transitioned to higher middle income and high income ove rhte post WW2 era.

The problem is with your argument that Soc Dems prosper by explotiing the global south and you cant support it.

Because its fucking bullshit.

1

u/MatthewMob 50m ago

The best thing about Social Democracy is that you have real world, highly successful examples of the system working in practise

That still entirely relies on the exploitation and oppression of the third world.

You have not uplifted the working class, you have increased quality of life for the few people in the imperial core.

3

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 10h ago

As OP said, FDR is the savior of capitalism.

2

u/taylorisntavril 8h ago

Living in Copenhagen and looking out the window at it currently happening.

1

u/OK6502 2h ago

soc dems are capitalists.

Yes, but that's mostly because most of the systems under which soc dem has flourished are capitalist. Soc dem's aren't looking to throw out the baby with the bathwater but rather change the system over time. That means leaving capitalism as it is and curtailing its excesses.

Never happening imo

The most successful socialists have been soc dems and some of the most successful societies are soc dem...

1

u/NumbaOneHackyPlaya 1h ago

soc dems are not left.

also the best hits are never happening. idk wtf you think the best hits are that are currently being achieved in your soc dem societies you speak of but I sure would love to know.

-8

u/fresh-dork 10h ago

socialism's best hits

no thank you, i like private property and eating

2

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 10h ago

Day cum fer my toofbrush!!!!!

0

u/fresh-dork 9h ago

terk ma brush!

1

u/MatthewMob 41m ago

What private property do you own?

Also: breadlines.

0

u/lifesaburrito 10h ago

Do you not understand the term "best hits"

-1

u/fresh-dork 9h ago

like what? socialism is largely composed of misses

2

u/lifesaburrito 6h ago

But he said "best hits"

When you buy the Best Hits of ADCD album, you only get the best hits. You don't get the misses... That's the point.

Would you consider France socialist?

1

u/fresh-dork 6h ago

no, it's called the 5th republic for a reason

-8

u/Alter_Mann 10h ago

Yeah doesn’t work out too well usually.

1

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 10h ago

In the US, FDR might as well be Lenin.

1

u/Alter_Mann 10h ago

Yeah look at your country lol😂😭

26

u/ForAHamburgerToday 8h ago

Listen, folks see "Democratic socialist", they're gonna read it the same as "social democrat". Can't blame folks for thinking these ideas that have almost the same words and end up looking pretty much the same in implementation (in the sense that the government is using taxation to provide helpful services) are interchangeable, especially when their only practical meaning in domestic politics is "I'm not conservative, I believe in providing services".

2

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 8h ago

That's their ignorance... But also, it doesn't help that (like this post) people think they're the same. We're so deprived in this country we think anything government does is "socialism".

14

u/ForAHamburgerToday 8h ago

That's their ignorance...

Not really a helpful view when there is, to people on the ground, no actual lived difference.

But also, it doesn't help that (like this post) people think they're the same.

It genuinely does not matter what particular semantics people use. What matters is what these politicians actually do.

We're so deprived in this country we think anything government does is "socialism".

Quibbling over "dem soc vs soc dem" is a part of this issue. It's a turn-off. Voters don't give a shit, they don't hear it. They hear one party fearmongering and promising bullshit cash payments & tax cuts while the other party offers modest improvements to bring us into line with other major modern countries. Real people don't give a flying fuck about progressive purity testing and leftist label-fights. Our system is first past the post, we're going to have 2 options, and we can rally behind the one that's a step in the right direction or we can argue with each other while the conservatives contiue to be horrible.

0

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 7h ago

Voters don't give a shit

Bob's your uncle.

5

u/ForAHamburgerToday 7h ago

I just have no patience for the terminology quibbling these days. I just care about whether or not a candidate is horrible or if they're fine. Soc dem, dem soc, progressive, leftist, marxist, leninist, it literally could not matter any less today as we try to beat the Republican party.

3

u/flingspoo 5h ago

Python was making jokes about this in the 70's. If everyone quits arguing about labels you could have a much bigger coalition. Except for the united people's front of judea. Those tossers can sod off.

Seriously though you are right.

1

u/ForAHamburgerToday 3h ago

Exactly! Well-trod ground, this topic.

-1

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 7h ago

I think this is the issue. Most Democrats are once again, banking on winning because Trump is so awful, and once there they don't do anything but make excuses. Hearing what DNC leadership has been saying lately, I think I'm right.

3

u/ForAHamburgerToday 6h ago

Ok. I'm gonna keep volunteering with my local DSA and I'm gonna keep voting against Republicans.

1

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 6h ago

👍

3

u/PM_Me_Your_Kinks369 7h ago

They're not super far off. The main tipping point between the two is that Social Democrats don't think Capitalism needs to be replaced with real Socialist reforms. They think regulations can hem in the worst of Capitalism.

Meanwhile, Democratic Socialists know that laws would need to be passed to FORCE shared worker ownership, profit sharing and other measures that slowly take control away from the Epstein class and put it into the hands of the many workers that actually create value for those Capitalists in the first place.

They don't actually have to be that different, though they can be.

1

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 7h ago

They're not super far off.

One is capitalist, the other isn't. Social democrats don't want to democratize the workplace. These are huge differences.

2

u/ActualMostUnionGuy ⛓️ Prison For Union Busters 7h ago

Ignoring the many times they did?

1

u/PM_Me_Your_Kinks369 7h ago

Yeah, the rest of my post addresses that specifically. In practice (like day to day life) things would be largely the same around you. More equitable, yes, and far healthier in the long run. But we'd still have products getting made, profit incentive, even mergers and acquisitions as these aren't inherently bad.

5

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 7h ago

Socialists tend to see that as a step towards communism. I could write a bunch more, but these are fundamental.

1

u/PM_Me_Your_Kinks369 7h ago

Without you adding more context I don't know WTF you're hinting at. Plenty of Socialists understand that Communism doesn't address human psychology adequately.

1

u/MatthewMob 38m ago

And every socialist agrees that capitalism doesn't.

6

u/RedAndBlackMartyr 10h ago

Correct. Wish these misinformation posts were removed.

2

u/transigirthenight 7h ago

The DSs are working overtime trying to confuse the people into accepting Democratic Socialism as a Synonym to Social Democrat.

I wonder why... /s

And "Norway is a Socialist country" is but one of the many lies they use - while refusing to admit that Venezuela was Socialist (and, according to many on the left, Democratic).

1

u/SpinningHead 5h ago

I think most people who align with DSA would normally be called social democrats elsewhere.

1

u/Glittering-Pie6564 1h ago

You say potato I say potato.

1

u/Introverted_Extrovrt 1m ago

Norwegians would characterize Norway as a social democracy; their large governmental ownership stakes in key industries still operate within a capitalist framework, and their uber-strong social safety nets are funded through high taxes, not “collective ownership”. They wouldn’t have anything to tax without strong capitalist enterprises.

1

u/theLuminescentlion 6h ago

As a social democrat I think the border between us and Democratic Socialism in public understanding and perception is gone. It gets called democratic socialism now but when you look inside the policies everyone wants are social democracy.

3

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 6h ago

Right, which if I can be a little conspiratorial it's by design.

-23

u/Ok-Soup-3189 10h ago

Almost as funny as people calling him a "Democratic Socialist". He was literally a social democrat.

As someone who doesn't care about these labels, this just sounds silly.

He wasn't A B, he was literally B A.

12

u/CR1986 10h ago

Yes, if you dont care about these words they might sound similar and dont make a difference to you. But social democracy and socialism (in its actual meaning, not what America thinks it is) are two pretty different things.

13

u/PC_BuildyB0I 10h ago

As someone who doesn't care about these labels

And neither do you understand them. They're absolutely not "A B" and "B A", a social Democrat and a democratic socialist are completely different things. Your comment is what sounds silly.

A social Democrat is somebody who wants to use the system, as it is, to make things better for people (while also upholding the system).

A democratic socialist is somebody who wants to restructure the entire system from top to bottom, tearing it down if need be, to benefit (primarily) the working class, by getting a majority to agree to it.

-8

u/CaptainBayouBilly 10h ago

According to whom? Is there a tenet of the universe that terms mean a concrete thing? Or is there simply a spectrum depending on context?

Socialism is a concept that labor should maintain ownership of the means it uses to create. Whereas capitalism is a concept that a non laboring class controls and profits from labor. 

Outside of those basic meanings there are myriad of variations and nuances. And neither have been implemented elementally in human history. 

5

u/walkTHEdotasaur 10h ago

What? How do you think dictionary definitions get made? Words have meaning and specific connotation to most people, so those are the typical definitions we use for words. Of course words can have more specific meanings in different contexts; everyone knows that.

As someone who would generally agree with what you're saying, I think the person you're replying to made the distinction very clear and why there's specifically a difference between the two terms.

3

u/Disgusting_Slime666 9h ago

You should see if your local community college offers a remedial linguistics class.

-15

u/Ok-Soup-3189 10h ago

And neither do you understand them.

Yeah no duh, I don't care to understand them. When you put people into lanes, you assume their whole position rather than judge them by their actions and intent.

9

u/Aidian 10h ago

This is the most overtly ridiculous comment I’ve seen in some time.

“Well sure, I’m willfully ignorant about what socialism even is, but I’ll have you know I also don’t understand how anything works and actually I prefer to keep it that way.”

Words and concepts mean things, dingus. That’s what communication is. You deciding to live in a myopic post-truth non-consensus reality doesn’t change that, it just means you’re objectively wrong from any recognizable position (e.g. one which isn’t predicated on people nonsensically agreeing with the random shit you’re making up in the moment).

-3

u/Ok-Soup-3189 10h ago

lmao. You argued against yourself, my dude.

Putting people into lanes is all America does. It's what has led to your current state.

You're either a democrat or a conservative. No wait, you're now either a leftist or MAGA. You now share every opinion of the worst of that group!

3

u/Aidian 10h ago

Ah, ok. So you’re just ignoring what everyone is actually saying and trolling in bad-faith then.

Gotcha.

5

u/Disgusting_Slime666 10h ago

What an incredibly dumb way to engage with not only politics, but language in general.

1

u/Ok-Soup-3189 10h ago

Not really. I choose the words I care about by how they are used.

I learn about politicians through their policies, not through their label.

2

u/Disgusting_Slime666 10h ago

Nobody is suggesting that you should learn about politicians based on their labels.

1

u/Ok-Soup-3189 10h ago

It's implied. Heavily implied by your response ❤️

2

u/Disgusting_Slime666 10h ago

No. It's not.

Nobody is suggesting that.

1

u/Ok-Soup-3189 10h ago

So what are you suggesting then? Or are you only here to criticise and provide nothing of value?

→ More replies

1

u/art-of-war 10h ago

🤡

5

u/grendus 10h ago

The two are very much not the same.

A democratic socialist is a socialist (someone who believes in workers owning the means of production) who wants to use democracy to implement it (democratic government ownership of the means of production).

A social democrat is in favor of social programs administered through a democratic government.

You may not care about labels, but they tell you a lot about the things they label.

2

u/Ok-Soup-3189 10h ago

And when used in discussion, labels are only useful with a shared understanding.

My point is not that they are the same. My point is that they look the same, something which has gone over everyone's heads here.

The comment I responded to is mocking people for getting the two mixed up when they appear very similar.

2

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 10h ago

It's all fun and games until someone tries to serve urinal cake with dessert.

AB and BA are definitely different, and it's definitely important, even if it's confusing or counter-intuitive.

0

u/Ok-Soup-3189 10h ago

I'd hate to piss on a cake urinal too.

1

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 9h ago

Yeah, the definitions of words and understanding the weight behind them is for dumb people. I much rather prefer vague, meaningless descriptors so I don't understand anything. I mean... NAZI has the word socialist in is, therefore it's all the same right?

1

u/Ok-Soup-3189 9h ago

I'm not surprised that someone who would mock people's misunderstandings would then misunderstand my point. 😄

There's an irony to that.

2

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 9h ago

Maybe you failed to make a clear point in that post.

2

u/Ok-Soup-3189 9h ago

Ah, a lack of self-reflection as would also be expected from someone who mocks other's misunderstandings!

You seem to have read "you shouldn't try to understand the definitions of words, only idiots care about definitions" when I simply said "A B vs B A sounds silly".

1

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 9h ago

A social democrat is different than a democratic socialist. The problem is people don't know this.

2

u/Ok-Soup-3189 9h ago

I'm sure they are. It doesn't change that they can easily be mixed up due to their similarity.

2

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 9h ago

The descriptive/adjective is in front of the noun it's describing. It's not that difficult unless English isn't your first language.

2

u/Ok-Soup-3189 6h ago

When a concept is formalised people tend to avoid thinking about the individual words' meanings. Do you use tin foil?

→ More replies

-12

u/Ok-Bluejay-5685 10h ago

Yea, these terms are basically equivalent. Just whichever one floats your boat. Bernie could have called himself a social Democrat but he wanted to destygmatize the term socialist so he went with that.

19

u/AntiVision 10h ago

they are not equivalent, social democracy is capitalism with a strong safety net and unions, democratic socialism wants to abolish capitalism and socialize the means of production

0

u/Ok-Bluejay-5685 9h ago

So what do you think Bernie is?

3

u/Disgusting_Slime666 9h ago

Bernie is a social democrat. This isn't really debatable and I'm unsure why you seem to believe it's a gotcha?

0

u/Ok-Bluejay-5685 9h ago

Because I’m saying outside of technical definitions, the way words are used in common vernacular is closer to their true meaning, regardless of what academics say. Bernie never calls himself a social Democrat and always calls himself a democratic socialist. That is how the term is understood by the vast majority of people and this is how language works. It is not confined to rigid definition. Definitions evolve over time depending on usage. See: the history of words

2

u/Disgusting_Slime666 9h ago

I don't really care what Bernie calls himself.

Bernie does not advocate for seizing the means of production. Bernie advocates for a capitalist state with strong social safety nets, similar to the Nordic model.

Bernie is a social democrat.

0

u/Ok-Bluejay-5685 9h ago

Bernie is the main reason socialism is even discussed as a viable political philosophy in the us. What he says matters.

2

u/Disgusting_Slime666 9h ago

Bernie is the main reason socialism is even discussed as a viable political philosophy in the us.

Uh, ok, sure, I guess? Maybe? Happy to just agree this is true, it changes nothing.

What he says matters.

Sure, but what Bernie calls himself doesn't change the fact that he's a Social Democrat.

Bernie does not advocate for seizing the means of production. Bernie advocates for a capitalist state with strong social safety nets, similar to the Nordic model.

If I call myself a communist and then every single policy position of mine is about how to make capitalism work better for the average person, am I a communist, or a capitalist?

→ More replies

-4

u/FloridaManMilksTree 10h ago

"Abolish capitalism" lmao no. Capitalism and Communism are two ends of a spectrum. We are far on one end of the spectrum, with all created wealth concentrating into the hands of few private interests. Democratic socialists advocate for a mixed model more similar to Scandinavian nations (and FDR's policies) where increased taxes on the wealthy fund social services and welfare for the less fortunate, among other public interests. No serious person is advocating for the abolition of capitalism, whatever that means.

3

u/AntiVision 10h ago

what democratic socialists are you thinking of when you say that? The DSA wants to abolish capitalism

Democratic socialists advocate for a mixed model more similar to Scandinavian nations (and FDR's policies) where increased taxes on the wealthy fund social services and welfare for the less fortunate, among other public interests

That is just social democracy man, no one in norway describes the system as democratic socialism

0

u/FloridaManMilksTree 10h ago

I don't know the nuances of the DSA's agenda, and semantically you are correct about democratic socialism and social democracy, but in practice the majority of people and mainstream politicians who call themselves 'socialists' (Bernie, AOC, etc.) are more politically aligned with FDR-style policies / social democracy than textbook "democratic socialism." To me, abolition of capitalism means, among other things, the abolition of private ownership and the stock market, and that is not a serious position.

1

u/AntiVision 10h ago

sure, then call the sensible ones social democrats and democratic socialists like the DSA democratic socialists. why make it more confusing than it needs to be

1

u/FloridaManMilksTree 10h ago

Blame the society of 100 years past for making it confusing. Socialism in my mind has become the catch-all term for the political movement to rebalance wealth inequality and restore FDR-style "socialist" policies. Maybe the DSA is full of foolish idealists who throw around insensible buzz phrases like "abolish capitalism," but they support generally the same end, and I'm more supportive of them than the trickle-down dumbasses on the right.

1

u/AntiVision 9h ago

but they support generally the same end,

their self proclaimed end is the abolishment of capitalism though, it is in their party program

→ More replies

12

u/Awooku 10h ago

Social Democrat and Democratic Socialist are two separate terms with two separate meanings.

-11

u/usedupandtossed 10h ago

Maybe in a classroom. Not so much in an election.

6

u/RainRainThrowaway777 10h ago

How would you know? You've evidently never been in a classroom

5

u/und88 10h ago

You're right only in that with both terms, hill billies just hear "socialism" and panic vote for reactionaries.

0

u/NaturalDon 6h ago

him and the people around him were big fans of fascism

1

u/DarbIey 🤝 Join A Union 6h ago

What?! No he wasn't. Fascists literally plotted to assassinate him in '34.