I’d be okay with just democracy taking over the Democratic party
What if a foreign genocidal ethnostate takes over the Democratic Party?
Russia took over the GOP, not Democrats.
Democrats are very obviously in bed with Israel (not to say GOP isn’t as well).
The Democratic Party needs an anti-trump:
Someone who is the opposite of trump in every way…
Smart, wise, humble, charitable, brave, gregarious, kind, caring, socialist, democratic, and good.Essentially, someone who embodies all the virtues that the hypocrites of the Christian Right eschew.
Smart and wise folk generally do their best to stay out of formal politics. politics sucks.
Closest I can think of is Bernie Sanders, but he may have aged out of a presidential run.
Well obviously more dems would become republicans than would become socialists…
If someone reveals themselves to be garbage, they were always garbage
Yeah! People never change! They never have experiences that make them worse, or better!
We can hope.
I’d love to go socialist at this point. Capitalism has only fucked me over and over and over.
Nice of you to give socialism its turn.
I’m pretty wealthy and I want the USA to be way more socialist. I want medical for all, free daycare, food security for everyone, and a huge expansion of public education. Unfortunately about 50% of the population equates any socialism with Marxism and refuses to even hear how bad they’re getting screwed by their Corp sponsored overlords.
I’m literally explaining social democracies vs Marxism to grown adults on nextdoor constantly. These knuckle draggers have the strongest political opinions and the weakest base of knowledge, it’s infuriating. The 24 hour news cycle has turned our dumb neighbors into hateful mean little people.
Social democracy isn’t socialism. Which is why it has the same problems as capitalism.
They don’t equate socialism and marxism, they haven’t read Marx like most people and implies think anything left of Bill Clinton is Marxist because that’s what talking heads have told them.
Fucking authwall
As far as image goes, I would change the color from red to blue.
You’d just have two parties debating over which failed system is better.
Can you elaborate
Socialism failed. You have a bunch of people making excuses for it, but it obvious to anyone with any common sense that a system involving excessive central planning always winds up being an Animal Farm kind of thing. This has been proven by history but there’s people making dumb excuses about how the started conditions weren’t right and “next time it will work for sure.” Socialists are basically that old guy from Jurassic Park.
Supply side economics failed. Should be obvious that businesses aren’t benevolent organizations that are going to “create jobs” just because they have some extra money lying around. They aren’t charities, they’re businesses.
Reasonable people understand that neither extreme works. It makes sense to use more socialist policies where it makes sense to (like healthcare) and have regulated capitalism where that makes sense. The peak of human prosperity was under a capitalist system before the oil crisis of the 1970s (and before Reagan). Maybe we should go back to “we’re all Keynesian now” kind of system because that fucking worked? Instead what a lot of people learned was oil dependence is good (despite oil crises always causing economic problems) and if the wealthy are even wealthier then that’s good for everyone somehow. It’s as dumb as socialists believing some altruistic vibes by the people in power will make everything work out.
But the internet has resulted in people being incapable of understanding anything beyond “thing good” or “thing bad” and preferring slogans and populism over economic policies that have been proven to work. Compromise is considered a bad thing to those with brain rot, so people are gravitating towards radical extremes which have been proven by history to be complete failures.
It’s probably more important to do things well than to do them based on a strict ideology.
Russia for instance was a great example of how to completely fuck up turning a country free market capitalist. And generally really just fuck up.
Like actual socialism or just the watered down socialism which may be barely palatable to most Americans?
This would be far more accurately titled as ‘returns to’ given FDRs New Deal and the fact that 99% of socialist policies enacted over the last century are from the Democrats, instead of the inflammatory weasel-wording ‘what if socialism takes over’ like it’s some kind of coup.
It might be some dumb play to drum up clicks from right-wing people who have never seen a Jacobin article I guess, but it puts off their base, and looking through the article… it doesn’t hide its socialist-positive bias at all even from the first few sentences, so I kinda doubt that intent. Just dumb.
instead of the inflammatory weasel-wording ‘what if socialism takes over’ like it’s some kind of coup.
If I can give some context, as a DSA member, while DSA is parasitizing the Democratic ballot line, it essentially acts like an independent party.
The goal isn’t necessarily to “take over” the Democratic Party. Rather, the dominant position in DSA is what’s called a “Dirty Break”, where the org parasitizes the Dems in the short term, essentially until they kick us out (Ideally in such a way that DSA comes out the stronger org, and that the Dems whither not unlike the Whigs).
Something which is already starting to happen, with Democrats telling us to go “make our own party” as though we haven’t looked at the US political system, and ruled that out for now.
Further, DSA is a big tent organization, with everyone from reformist social democrats, to Anarchists, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. And the DSA party platform (the updated version of which gets released on the 14th, I believe) expresses an overt desire by DSA to transcend capitalism. So this isn’t just a return to FDR style social Democracy, like you’re suggesting, there’s a bit more going on
Thanks for the clarification, I feel like very little of this was discussed in the article and you explain it better.
Good luck getting that motley crew to get along. Everyone can agree on anticapitalism but that’s basically it. How exactly to go about it is going to vary widely. It’s hard to see Marxist-Leninists wanting to play ball with reform advocates.
It’s still a good idea worth trying. I’m just skeptical of lefties ever turning into a cohesive force since there’s such a wide array of leftism and some of the particulars of given ideologies are mutually exclusive.
Yeah, the left is unfortunately mired with purity tests and No True Scotsman fallacies. Meanwhile, the right is laser focused on marching directly towards fascism. It’s like watching a game of tug-of-war, except one side has people tripping their teammates, or loudly complaining about how they got rope burn one time so they’re going to refuse to participate.
Good luck getting that motley crew to get along
I mean, this isn’t a project that started yesterday, and it isn’t some hypothetical. DSA has existed in its current form, a big tent with ideological and strategically based caucuses, for a little over a decade at this point. If anything the caucus system, which currently codifies those different tendencies in the org, makes it stronger. People within DSA debate endlessly about everything under the sun, but the minute any one part of the org is attacked by someone on the right, the org rallies around them, generating greater organizational coherence. It’s like having siblings. You can bully your little brother, but god forbid anyone else tries it.
Additionally, caucuses allow DSA members to collaborate across chapters in ways that national is improving on, but not currently able to fully facilitate. Caucuses also exchange ideas, strategies, etc. in ways that general membership might not do otherwise.
And that, I think, is what has allowed DSA to grow in the way that it has. All of these left tendencies are forced to come to the table in order to get what they want, instead of just imploding into a billion little sects. And those negotiations, both among caucuses, and with material conditions, mean that DSA is able to formulate a cohesive program and strategy.
I think the Caucus system, as it currently stands, will probably have to be done away with at some point, if DSA is to cohere more power, and thus a greater sense of party discipline, but for now, I think it’s a strength of the org, not a weakness.
If you think socialism is bad, you either are an evil piece of shit or ignorant of what socialism actually is.
Or both!
It won’t.
The democrats won’t allow anything that makes the establishment neolibs look bad.
E: lol downvotes. I hope y’all prove me wrong, but the Dems are still mostly shit. I’ll vote blue, but they no longer represent pulling us back from the edge to me. They’re “don’t upset the apple cart” and “we can’t undo anything, it’s water under the bridge.”
Socialist: We want you all to have free readily available healthcare
Republican Base: OVER OUR DEAD BODIES!!
WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM screams my family as I tell them that they will pay the same or less in taxes than they were for insurance in the first place.
*“OVER YOUR DEAD BODIES!”
ftfy
Universal healthcare is not socialism nor is it socialist.
Literally any kind of government can have universal healthcare. What type of government is completely irrelevant for What kind of healthcare the country has.
Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production. Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet. You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism.
With the way things are going, probably.
