A new Yahoo/YouGov survey finds that about twice as many U.S. adults say they would vote for a candidate with Mamdani’s platform (50%) than say they would not (26%). Could it be a blueprint for Democrats elsewhere?
A new Yahoo/YouGov survey finds that about twice as many U.S. adults say they would vote for a candidate with Mamdani’s platform (50%) than say they would not (26%). Could it be a blueprint for Democrats elsewhere?
I understand what you’re saying. Unfortunately the amount of right-wing propaganda out there will label any real challenger as being socialist whether that’s Mamdani or the “radical marxist socialist commie” that was… Kamala Harris?
So progressives must decide whether they hide from the term, enabling the fearmongering, or openly embracing it to show there is nothing wrong with it.
Second to that, I feel they should be pivoting the questions not just to policy but to definitionally explain the notion of socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracies; how in reality — as in actual, realized, tangible results, not utopian fantasies — some of the happiest and most successful countries by the data are ones who embraced a properly mixed economy; that is, social democracies or the Nordic Model.
I recently had what was maybe one of my biggest wins in a conversation with a maga by explaining it this way. They’re so damn confused and believe all trade and bartering, all markets, and any scale of monetary income will vanish. That big bad guv’mint isn’t necessarily so bad when it’s protected from outsized corporate and billionaire power and firmly in the hands Of the People.
I mean, if someone wants to call themselves socialist, maybe it’s fine, but I think most of their discussion should be about the policies they are for, how they would work, etc., and what that would mean for everyday Americans.
Once the qons throw out that tar baby Red Scare stuff, and the target(s) start engaging with them on this, tacitly accepting the framings and the definitions that the qons have chosen? Game over. Now the target(s) are on the back foot, trying to prove they aren’t the demons a lot of normies and qons have been trained to think anyone with those labels really are, and they get to wrestle the tar baby endlessly.
Instead of doing that, I suggest these people make the qons justify THEIR positions. How is it morally defensible that the likes of Taco and fElon got out their chainsaw and have already murdered hundreds of thousands of children and jeopardizes millions more in the future? As an example on the national stage.
If progressives waste tons of time defending themselves, arguing over the absurd framing and definitions and terms that the qons have spent decades sharpening, they are already losing. Their narrative should be about painting a brighter future for every American, while demanding the qons defend THEIR reprehensible actions and political platforms.
I’ve been wondering, what if they just ran in the opposite direction? Don’t call it “state-owned industry” or “collective ownership”, but instead “Hypercapitalism: every citizen is a shareholder!”
Work should provide ownership. Worker-owned co-ops should be the default form of business organization. We should write it into corporate charter law that any business over a certain number of employees must gradually transition to a worker-owned co-op. For example, maybe every company over 30 employees must transfer 2% of its equity to its employees each year. This would mean after about 35 years, the business would be majority owned by its employees. Business founders and investors can still make plenty of profit, but you prevent the accumulation of generational wealth. You prevent the formation of an aristocracy by slowly transferring the ownership of company’s from their founders to their employees over time. (And obviously you have a lot of other policy details to make this work, such as not just having a flat threshold. Always have to point this out as the “umm aktually” brigade likes to confuse aspirational policy descriptions for actual legislation.)
I fully agree. Companies should belong to the people that allow I to turn a profit, and that is, well, every employee. The founders could still remain the CEOs if they do a good job and are elected to do so.
I like the idea of the transition happening slowly over several decades. Basically you found a company, and you’ll be able to maintain majority control over it until you reach your retirement. You can have a vision and carry it through. You just can’t create a multi generational empire that makes your children and grandchildren into newly minted aristocrats.
“This is a policy Eisenhower endorsed in 1956. Are you saying Ike was a Communist?”
I just realized Ike was our last (openly) bald President.
Or… they just completely ignore it?
If you’re going to be labeled a socialist and commie sympathizer no matter what you do, why not just run on your platform and brush off the accusations as political hubris?
As far as my decision-making on that would go, I think it would depend on if the actual electorate is believing that mischaracterization, and if I have access to actually respond directly to those people or not.
In a debate for instance, I’d aim to hand-wave that away in dismissal but then pivot and say, "let’s talk about what I really envision for our country and you can tell me if that sounds good to you…[explains]… And so for these great things, you’ll probably end up asking, “but how will we pay for it? [explains ROI, our excess costs now, the amount of wealth of the billionaire class and corporate coffers, etc.]”
If after that the debate moderator or opponent continues to push hard on, “but are you a socialist. Are you a communist!?” I’d take that as an invitation to say explain the differences and how the happiest countries of the world are properly mixed economies between the spectrum of socialism to laissez-faire capitalism.
So, your plan is to waste debate time and call yourself a Socialist.
Why not do something like say “This is what Ike backed back when he was President. Are you calling Ike a Communist?”
No. That is a mischaracterization and oversimplification of what I wrote (like how did you get that from my second paragraph?). I’m already going to be called a socialist; and until the word and others like it are unpacked, they will always be used to fearmonger. Best to address it head-on and take away the power to demonize. I mean just see how many times Mamdani was asked about it during his latest interviews, including with NPR. You have to confront it because it’s a curiosity with the unknown for so many people.
At its core, you must rewire the literal circuitry of people’s brains to link policies -> socialism, or better yet, Nordic model. But if you don’t strongly link these policies to a ideological package, people will feel adrift. It’s why political parties are so attractive. People like pigeon-holing things. Granted, I would also say that I am not a socialist, but a social democrat and strong advocate of a mixed Nordic Model economy— which itself is overwhelmingly more palatable for swing-voters, and even some Trump supporters I’ve talked with.
I’m open to saying that; but neither is that mutually-exclusive to what I intended to say. And if it was Trump I’m debating, he probably would say “yes, that Ike was a communist” or “no Ike couldn’t be a commie, he was a Republican!” And then ramble on incoherently about cats & dogs.
No doubt, you need quick-witted quips back in debates that go on the attack, I agree. In fairness my response is probably better suited for a town hall or interview.
And you think your opponents won’t mischaracterize you?
Leave the ivory tower and look at the real world.
Politics is a dirty game at the best of times. People lie, steal, cheat, and connive on a daily basis.
lol no fucking shit? This is a meta-discussion. I didn’t know I was talking to a Trump supporter. Thought we could discuss like adults, but clearly not.
Is that real world enough for you?
So, you can’t actually defend your position in any rational way.
Thanks for proving my point.
lol what a peculiar fella. Have a good day.
NGL, the Birchers were rather famous for declaring him as a conscious agent of the “communist conspiracy”.
The people we are dealing with are either current/former Birchers, or their ideological result.
But it’d be good to out just how extreme these people really are by getting them to go on the record about just what they believe. I mean…Eisenhower, commie? LOL.