Why do Socialists Hate the Label "Socialist"?
Why do Americans who sympathize with socialism hate having any label even resembling "socialism" applied to them? I've noticed this in my debates all over the internet, all over my social circles, and in the news. And when I say "socialism," I'm speaking in the broadest possible sense. People who support state-totalitarian socialism hate being called socialists. People who support Marxist ideals hate being called Marxists. People who believe strongly in democratic socialism or social democracy REFUSE to admit that they do. I mean, I'd hate to be called a socialist, because I'm a libertarian, at the far opposite end of the spectrum. But I wouldn't object to someone calling me a libertarian. I'm proud to be a libertarian, and I'm impressed and appreciative when someone recognizes it. Why aren't American socialists proud of their beliefs?
For example, I was researching party ideologies around the world, trying to compare other countries' political parties to those of the US. What I found is the the US Democratic Party's principles, policies, and strategies are absolutely identical in every way to the policies of other parties around the world that call themselves "social democrats." But good luck finding a news source that actually calls the Democrats "social democrats." The mainstream media seems to still believe that Bill Clinton is still the President, implementing his "Third Way." For those who are unfamiliar, the "Third Way" mostly supports capitalism with a small and decentralized government, aggressively balanced budgets, and a market-based welfare system that acts as a springboard rather than a crutch or a redistribution system. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Wa…
Even a cursory comparison between the Democratic Party of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and the "Third Way" raises some major red flags. It's absurd on its face to suggest that these Democratic leaders prioritize budget-balancing as they increase government spending to 25% of the GDP and declare their opponents "obstructionists" for not letting them bring it even higher. It's absurd on its face to suggest that these Democrats support a small, and decentralized government that mostly favors capitalism, as they implement a government takeover of banks, the automobile industry, the health care industry, etc. President Obama frequently gives speeches in which he mentions a vague need for capitalism, and then immediately qualifies it by suggesting the government should take over everything that's "too important to be left to markets." Contemporary Democrats make a big issue out of "social justice," calling for redistributive taxes and race-and-sex-based welfare programs. All of these policies directly contradict the "Third Way" philosophy, and should offend any proponent of it, while making social democrats feel quite at home. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_d…
Yet, when I tried voicing these observations to a Democrat, he got extremely offended, declaring that all reliable sources call the Democrats a "Third Way" party, and in response to my use of the term "social democrat," accused me of just being hostile to the Democratic Party. To be fair, there are plenty of ways in which I'm hostile towards the Democrats, but I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic here! This is me making an honest effort to understand what Democrats believe. However, if they refuse to be honest about what their party advocates, then THAT would be something to be hostile about.
So what's the deal? Are they in denial about the departure of Bill Clinton from the White House? Are they trying to trick "Third Way" advocates into supporting social democracy? Are they just pulling the dumb hipster move of avoiding all labels? Does someone have a better explanation?
For example, I was researching party ideologies around the world, trying to compare other countries' political parties to those of the US. What I found is the the US Democratic Party's principles, policies, and strategies are absolutely identical in every way to the policies of other parties around the world that call themselves "social democrats." But good luck finding a news source that actually calls the Democrats "social democrats." The mainstream media seems to still believe that Bill Clinton is still the President, implementing his "Third Way." For those who are unfamiliar, the "Third Way" mostly supports capitalism with a small and decentralized government, aggressively balanced budgets, and a market-based welfare system that acts as a springboard rather than a crutch or a redistribution system. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Wa…
Even a cursory comparison between the Democratic Party of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and the "Third Way" raises some major red flags. It's absurd on its face to suggest that these Democratic leaders prioritize budget-balancing as they increase government spending to 25% of the GDP and declare their opponents "obstructionists" for not letting them bring it even higher. It's absurd on its face to suggest that these Democrats support a small, and decentralized government that mostly favors capitalism, as they implement a government takeover of banks, the automobile industry, the health care industry, etc. President Obama frequently gives speeches in which he mentions a vague need for capitalism, and then immediately qualifies it by suggesting the government should take over everything that's "too important to be left to markets." Contemporary Democrats make a big issue out of "social justice," calling for redistributive taxes and race-and-sex-based welfare programs. All of these policies directly contradict the "Third Way" philosophy, and should offend any proponent of it, while making social democrats feel quite at home. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_d…
Yet, when I tried voicing these observations to a Democrat, he got extremely offended, declaring that all reliable sources call the Democrats a "Third Way" party, and in response to my use of the term "social democrat," accused me of just being hostile to the Democratic Party. To be fair, there are plenty of ways in which I'm hostile towards the Democrats, but I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic here! This is me making an honest effort to understand what Democrats believe. However, if they refuse to be honest about what their party advocates, then THAT would be something to be hostile about.
So what's the deal? Are they in denial about the departure of Bill Clinton from the White House? Are they trying to trick "Third Way" advocates into supporting social democracy? Are they just pulling the dumb hipster move of avoiding all labels? Does someone have a better explanation?
Comments122
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Because most Americans are not socialists. Duhh
Most Americans are social democrats (a type of socialist).
Please define social democrats. Unless you mean commies. XD
Maybe it's the simple "Socialist is a dirty word" effect? It's like labeling someone racist or homophobic or biggoted; no one (normally) likes to be labeled this way because it's socially damaging, even if it's true.
That said, there's nothing wrong with being socialist, it's just another belief system. Then too there's the level of socialist a person can be. Some people like small socialism, some medium and some want it all. Sadly the moment someone who does have socialist leanings mentions anything linked to it, that's all a majority of people see and believe the person is.
By the way, throwing out insults at people just because they believe a way - whether it's socialist or even your libertarian - is immature and actually degrades the worth of your opinion in any debate/discussion. Using the term "Socialist" as if it's some sort of slander and automatically dismisses a persons opinion/point only makes you look like an elitist jerk no matter what political spectrum you are.
AKA your "honestly not trying to be antagonistic here" line is BS from everything I've read of yours.
That said, there's nothing wrong with being socialist, it's just another belief system. Then too there's the level of socialist a person can be. Some people like small socialism, some medium and some want it all. Sadly the moment someone who does have socialist leanings mentions anything linked to it, that's all a majority of people see and believe the person is.
By the way, throwing out insults at people just because they believe a way - whether it's socialist or even your libertarian - is immature and actually degrades the worth of your opinion in any debate/discussion. Using the term "Socialist" as if it's some sort of slander and automatically dismisses a persons opinion/point only makes you look like an elitist jerk no matter what political spectrum you are.
AKA your "honestly not trying to be antagonistic here" line is BS from everything I've read of yours.
yes, this is my absolute favorite quote my churchill. thank you
I think Attila the Hun would be considered socialist by the anarcho - capitalists of today.He actually gave a toss about his own tribe .Democratic socialism ( in the absence of a benevolent monarchy ) provides a relatively fair outcome .Socialism is only a dirty word in the U.S.A but then throwing a dime to beggar is considered Communism.
Actually, throwing a dime to a beggar is considered a weak form of charity. Charity is very much encouraged in capitalist societies, but doesn't tend to happen in societies that think they can just vote for the government to solve all their problems cost-free.
Not to the beggar.
For a simple reason; Their ideas are never represented for what they are. Socialism is turned into this cartoonish, weird version of what it is all about. You're suggesting that they support some kind of state dictatorship, no rational people support that. If you frame them this way, then no wonder that socialists don't even wish to talk to you. -What would be the point? At the end of the day, socialism is an idea about how to distribute the surplus wealth of an industrial civilization. They think it ought to be distributed equitably. -Whether their idea works or not in practice, I have no idea. All I can say is, that it has never been truly explored. Socialists are very much in the margin in most industrial societies. Very few of them have political parties, let alone presidential candidates. In the nordic country that I live, the socialist party has about 5% support among the public. I suspect the reason why your Democratic party rejects the label "socialism", is because they in fact are not socialists at all. Government (over)spending has been going on, since the time Governments have existed. There's nothing inherently socialistic about it. Governments and politicians like to spend money. It's just how it goes.
Not in the slightest. When I call someone a socialist, I'm accusing them of adhering to the belief that the government should control the means of production- i.e. the definition of socialism.
That's really not how socialist think about it. Socialists think of worker owned factories. Not government owned. There is a big difference there. Kinda like family run businesses, where everything is owned and operated by the people themselves. Many socialists bitterly condemned the goverment. I mean the modern libertarianism came from European socialism. It was originally called libertarian-socialism, but North America gave it, it's own "flavor". Instead of worker owned factories, everything ought to be controlled by the marketplace. So, in my mind they both share the same basic distrust for government, but their solutions are different.
You're thinking of anarcho-communism. Not all socialism is anarcho-communism. Worker-owned factories is entirely feasible in capitalism. In fact, under capitalism, your are free to found a business and structure it however you like. It won't necessarily be successful, but you're welcome to try.
Modern libertarianism did not come from European socialism- it came from classical liberalism- i.e. the ideas of liberty that the United States was originally founded upon.
Modern libertarianism did not come from European socialism- it came from classical liberalism- i.e. the ideas of liberty that the United States was originally founded upon.
Perhaps. My own research has lead me to figures like Bakunin, in regards to socialism (and Eugene Debs in the US). The way I see it, is that it was a reaction to harsh working conditions in factories back in the day. Because the working conditions were so hard, the workers felt that they ought to have a say in how those factories were run, since they spent most of their lives in those factories. I don't know how well that translates to this day and age. Perhaps the traditional socialism only existed for a brief time in history.
Libertarian socialism has many things in common with libertarianism. They really thought state power ought to be limited. I guess the modern libertarianism is more like an updated version of the Utilitarian tradition that emerged in Britain and the free choice philosophy. Seems to me, that mdoern libertarians would prefer to be associated with thinkers like Hume, Locke, Smith and Bentham.
Libertarian socialism has many things in common with libertarianism. They really thought state power ought to be limited. I guess the modern libertarianism is more like an updated version of the Utilitarian tradition that emerged in Britain and the free choice philosophy. Seems to me, that mdoern libertarians would prefer to be associated with thinkers like Hume, Locke, Smith and Bentham.
It's like the fact Britain hasn't been out of debt for centuries. When we were leading the world in traditional liberal ideology, we were in debt.
Yeah. I think that propably goes for almost every government on earth; They all seem to be addicted to debt. And it propably has to do with how the money system works as well.
It has to do with the flawed system that is democracy.Too much money is wasted on political propaganda and legalized bribery in a democracy and artificial scarcity happens due to governments using subsidies and laws to pick the winners of businesses.
Democracy is as ridiculous as a virgin giving birth to a living god.
Democracy is as ridiculous as a virgin giving birth to a living god.
Perhaps so, but don't you think that legalized bribery exists in non-democratic countries as well?
Of course it exists, but it's still way better under the right leadership.
Well, then my next question has to be: What kind of leadership is the right one? And who determines it?
View all replies
Why do dummycrats hate being called liberals and would prefer the milder term progressive, that is of course, until progressive gets the same connotation as liberal, then it'll be time for another name change.
Ever notice how most politicians don't say "SOCIAL" security, rather it's a truncated, "Soce" security? Listen for it.
Socialism is a dirty word and the bastards know it. Therefore it must be sugarcoated.
"Politicians are like diapers. Both must be changed frequently for the same reason"!
Ever notice how most politicians don't say "SOCIAL" security, rather it's a truncated, "Soce" security? Listen for it.
Socialism is a dirty word and the bastards know it. Therefore it must be sugarcoated.
"Politicians are like diapers. Both must be changed frequently for the same reason"!
They don't.
Unless by "label them as socialists" you meant screaming "GOMMUNISDS : DDDD!" at the top of your lungs.
Unless by "label them as socialists" you meant screaming "GOMMUNISDS : DDDD!" at the top of your lungs.
I'm a socialist and voted for Alexander over Obama (seeing as how he's an ACTUAL black socialist and not a DINO). I don't get offended when you call me a socialist so try again. 