How do board leftists feel about the socialists taking over the party?

Is it accurate to say that" without socialism there would be no SS, Medicare, police, fire departments, DPWs, Air Traffic Controllers, etc, or any service provided by the Government"?

No, that statement is not accurate. It conflates specific government programs and public services with "socialism" as an economic and political system.


What Socialism Actually Means​


Standard definitions describe socialism as an economic system (or theories advocating it) featuring social/public/collective ownership and control of the means of production (factories, land, capital, major industries), rather than private ownership. Distribution and exchange are also often centrally planned or collectively managed to prioritize social equality over market forces.


  • This contrasts with capitalism, which relies on private property, voluntary exchange, and market prices.
  • Public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous things like national defense, basic policing, or roads) and welfare programs funded by taxes are common in mixed economies and predate modern socialism. They do not require government ownership of factories, farms, or businesses.

Calling any tax-funded government service "socialism" is a rhetorical broadening that many actual socialists and economists reject. It would make nearly every organized society in history "socialist," which empties the term of meaning.


Specific Examples in the Claim​


  • Police, fire departments, DPWs (public works), air traffic control: These are classic public goods or essential government functions. Governments have provided law enforcement, fire protection, roads, and infrastructure for centuries under monarchies, republics, feudal systems, and capitalist economies long before socialism as a coherent ideology emerged in the 19th century. Private alternatives exist in limited cases (e.g., subscription-based fire services historically, or private security), but governments often handle them due to free-rider problems—not ideology.
  • Social Security (SS) and Medicare: These are social insurance/welfare programs introduced in the U.S. during the New Deal (1935) and Great Society (1965) eras to address old-age poverty and health costs amid the Depression and post-WWII changes. They involve mandatory payroll taxes and government redistribution, which some label "socialistic" in a broad sense. However, they operate within a predominantly capitalist economy with private ownership, markets, and profit motives. Similar programs exist in most developed capitalist nations (e.g., via Bismarck's social insurance in 19th-century Germany). They are not the same as socializing steel mills, auto plants, or agriculture.

Broader Context​


  • All governments provide services: This includes non-socialist ones. Ancient Rome had public roads/aqueducts; medieval cities had watchmen/fire brigades; liberal democracies like the U.S., UK, or Switzerland have long funded militaries, courts, and infrastructure via taxes without adopting socialist ownership of production.
  • Mixed economies: Most modern countries blend elements—private enterprise for most production, plus government roles in regulation, safety nets, and public goods. This is often called "social democracy" or welfare capitalism, not full socialism. Democratic socialists may push for more of the latter, but equating basic governance with socialism is imprecise.
  • The meme-like claim ("without socialism, no police/fire/SS") is common in political rhetoric but rejected by many on both sides for blurring distinctions between public services, welfare, and systemic economic ownership.

In short, government exists to solve coordination problems and provide certain collective benefits in any functional society. Socialism is a specific (and historically contested) approach to organizing the broader economy around collective control of production. The U.S. and similar countries have expanded safety nets and services while remaining capitalist in core structure. The statement overstates the case by redefining routine government activity as socialism.


Figures, “copy and paste” arrives with his copied and pasted Musk bullshitted opinions

Well ask Musk how would we have SS, Medicare, police, fire departments, DPWs, Air Traffic Controllers, etc, or any service provided by the Government without socialism
 
Do you?
Socialism is a broad economic and political theory advocating for collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production. Democratic socialism is a specific subset of socialism that seeks to abolish capitalism and establish a socialist economy, but insists this transition must be achieved exclusively through peaceful, democratic processes. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Citation? That is now how I would describe it, you got the peaceful part correct, but with the Candidates who are running as Democratic Socialists they want to add more Socialist elements into the Economy, not all elements of the Economy. There is not a socialist or Capitolist nation that exists that does not employ a mix of the two.
 
MAGA believes all socialists are commies, if elected tney are going to nationalize all industries, start reeducation camps, the whole Hollywood script
Actually it has led to that everywhere it has been tried.

What is interesting is that you socialists hate capitalism but you use it to great effect
 
Correct summary of the exchange:


  • Sailor (#32) provides a solid, standard definition of socialism and democratic socialism. It aligns closely with encyclopedic and academic sources: socialism centers on collective/governmental ownership of the means of production, and democratic socialism is a reformist variant that pursues socialist outcomes (moving beyond capitalism) through elections rather than revolution. The citations (likely from Reddit, YouTube, blogs, Britannica) are reasonable, even if imperfect.
  • Archives (#35) pivots with the "turn it around" rhetorical move — redefining routine government functions and welfare programs as inherently "socialist" and indispensable. This is a common online tactic but does not logically follow from Sailor's definition. It conflates:
    • Public goods / government services (which exist across systems and predate socialism).
    • Social insurance (SS, Medicare — 1935/1965 U.S. programs funded by capitalist taxes).
    • With full socialism as an economic system.

As noted before, this broadening makes "socialism" synonymous with "government does stuff," which weakens the term. Sailor’s earlier point (these programs are paid for by capitalism) is more accurate on funding mechanics in the U.S. mixed economy.


The exchange is typical forum point-scoring: one side emphasizes economic structure/ownership; the other equates any collective provision with the ideology. Neither is fully "wrong" in every context, but Sailor's definitional post is tighter and more precise.
 

Lots of democrat party incumbents being taken down in low turnout primaries.

Does this make you leftists happy?

Is the party finally shedding its "moderate" skin and think its safe to come out from hiding?
She'll win too. In Denver, whoever wins that Democrat Primary will be the Congresscritter.
 
Figures, “copy and paste” arrives with his copied and pasted Musk bullshitted opinions Well ask Musk how would we have SS, Medicare, police, fire departments, DPWs, Air Traffic Controllers, etc, or any service provided by the Government without socialism


Archives' reply is a dismissive ad hominem rather than substantive engagement.


He attributes the analysis to "copied and pasted Musk bullshitted opinions" and challenges Musk (not me) on the original claim. This is a common deflection tactic: avoid the definitional/economic argument by tying it to a disliked figure.


Quick clarification​


  • My analysis is not Musk's words or opinions. It draws from standard dictionary/encyclopedia definitions of socialism (collective ownership of means of production), economic distinctions between public goods/welfare and systemic socialism, and U.S. fiscal realities. These are mainstream views shared by many economists, historians, and classical liberals — not unique to Musk.
  • Musk has criticized expansive welfare/entitlements (e.g., calling Social Security a "Ponzi" in sustainability terms and supporting efficiency reforms), while supporting targeted government roles in some areas. But he is not the source here.

On the substance (again)​


The core claim still doesn't hold: Government services and social programs existed long before modern socialism and are funded by the productive private economy in mixed systems. You don't need "socialism" (as defined by Sailor or standard sources) to have police, fire departments, or even social insurance — you need a functional government with a tax base, which capitalism has historically generated more effectively at scale.


This is why the rebuttal is weak. It doesn't refute the ownership-based definition or address funding mechanics; it just repeats the assertion and attacks the messenger. Forums gonna forum.
 
Is it a “general viewpoint?”

Some feel support of Israel has gone to far, others don’t, just as some Republicans, as Vance, feel the same, others do not, wouldn’t generalize it to depict either group
DSAs have taken very strong pro-Palestinian positions and been highly critical of Israel, much more so than Democrats on the whole.

I asked Guno because he's progressive and Jewish, not as a gotcha but simply asking his opinion.
 
DSAs have taken very strong pro-Palestinian positions and been highly critical of Israel, much more so than Democrats on the whole.

I asked Guno because he's progressive and Jewish, not as a gotcha but simply asking his opinion.
Its not black or white, I have some Pro-Palestinian positions and some Pro-Israel positions. I also have been highly critical of Palestinians and Israel.
 
There are NO other countries that are democrat socialist. Not one. Just democrats here trying to put it in place.


There are several countries that are widely described as democratic socialist (or having strong democratic socialist influences/governments), though the exact label is debated depending on definitions.


Key Distinctions​


  • Democratic socialism generally means achieving socialist goals (e.g., strong public ownership in key sectors, extensive welfare, reducing inequality) through democratic elections and reforms, rather than revolution or authoritarianism. It often overlaps with social democracy (a mixed capitalist economy with a robust welfare state), and critics argue the latter isn't "true" socialism because private enterprise and markets remain dominant.
  • Pure socialism (state ownership of the means of production) is rare in functioning democracies today. Most examples are hybrid systems.

Common Examples​


Many sources list these countries as democratic socialist or social democratic with socialist-leaning policies:


  • Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland): Frequently cited for universal healthcare, free/affordable education, strong unions, high taxes, and generous welfare. Social democratic parties have long dominated. Bernie Sanders and others point to them as models. They rank very high in economic freedom and prosperity indices despite (or alongside) these policies.
  • Others often mentioned: Germany, UK (under Labour governments), France, Spain, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Portugal.
  • Additional cases: Some list Brazil, Bangladesh, South Africa, Poland (historically or variably), Nepal, and Sri Lanka with socialist parties in power.

Historical examples include Salvador Allende's Chile (1970–1973) and various post-WWII European governments with nationalizations.


Important Caveats​


  • Not "full socialism": Even in these countries, the economy is predominantly capitalist with private ownership, markets, and businesses driving growth. Nordic nations have deregulated, privatized some services, and score high on economic freedom (often higher than the US in some metrics). Leaders in Denmark and elsewhere have pushed back against being called "socialist."
  • Terminology debate: Some strict definitions say no major country today is truly democratic socialist because they haven't replaced capitalism wholesale. Others see social democracies as the practical, successful implementation.
  • Governments change: Socialist or social democratic parties win and lose power regularly.

The claim likely stems from a narrow definition excluding mixed economies or social democracies. In reality, many stable, prosperous democracies incorporate democratic socialist ideas and parties. No country matches a pure ideological version perfectly, but plenty exist with those characteristics.
 
Citation? That is now how I would describe it, you got the peaceful part correct, but with the Candidates who are running as Democratic Socialists they want to add more Socialist elements into the Economy, not all elements of the Economy. There is not a socialist or Capitolist nation that exists that does not employ a mix of the two.
That is the definition of Democratic Socialism. Feel free to look it up. They are not hiding what they want to do. They are relying on democrats not to be smart enough to look it up. And they are winning.
 
Its not black or white, I have some Pro-Palestinian positions and some Pro-Israel positions. I also have been highly critical of Palestinians and Israel.
That's fine. But look at the DSA platform and what they say they stand for vis a vis Israel-Palestine and look at the DSAs running for, and winning, office. They aren't offering nuanced positions. They tend to be very strongly pro-Palestine and very critical of Israel. Much more so than most Democrats.
 
Back
Top