celebrity-pundits talk about socialism

That was painful. I don’t think the video host did a very good job, either.

He completely whiffed on the slow pitch about Venezuela, which is the go-to country for righties who know absolutely nothing about socialism.

It’s not rocket science. Venezuela is a capitalist country. Its economy is for-profit and the vast majority is in private hands. Which means, by definition, it’s not a socialist country. You can’t be both. It’s one or the other. Capitalism or socialism.

Socialism, in fact, by extending democracy to the economy, democratizing it, changing the ownership of the means of production from the few to everyone, eliminates all traces of capitalism.

It can’t exist in that environment. It can’t exist under actual democracy. It’s something else.

The host is correct about McCain, though. She only gets these gigs cuz of her father. I’ve actually never heard her make a valid point about anything, despite her massive advantages growing up super-rich and in the thick of world events.

Anyway . . . the main problem with these discussions on TV is pretty obvious: They never allow actual socialists on air.

nittany ram wrote:

<groan> I don’t know if I should even watch that.

It’s probably like watching a 9ers fan and a Seahawk fan talk about the Rams.

That’s a pretty sharp observation, Nittany.

It would be like organizing a panel on the latest scientific theories in X field, without inviting a single scientist of any kind, in any field, to join in.

No scientists, anywhere. Just non-scientists, acting as if they knew what they were talking about.

Socialists are never asked to be a part of discussions on socialism. Yeah, that makes sense.

wv wrote:

One Thing i liked though, was when the Pro-Hillary-liberal was challenged with the usual “Where has socialism ever worked?”, she calmly listed Scandanavian nations. She didnt get all flustered or get all pedantic and boring. It was a good answer. And coming from her, it shocked me to be honest. I took it as a sign maybe the libs are getting a little better at this socialism discussion thing. I dunno.

w
v

I agree that Behar was good in the moment, but it seemed like McCain just talked over her. I also agree that “pedantic” won’t win hearts and minds, nor will wonkiness, a Democratic Party specialty.

But I’m still not convinced that blurring the lines between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism is the right way to go.

What’s your take on that, WV? Do you see that as the best strategy? If not, what is your preferred method/best practices, when it comes to this topic?

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I agree that Behar was good in the moment, but it seemed like McCain just talked over her. I also agree that “pedantic” won’t win hearts and minds, nor will wonkiness, a Democratic Party specialty.

But I’m st1ill not convinced that blurring the lines between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism is the right way to go.

What’s your take on that, WV? Do you see that as the best strategy? If not, what is your preferred method/best practices, when it comes to this topic?

=====================

Well BT, your guess is as good as mine. I dunno. I know that it depends on yer audience. Ya know. And the general tv-audience that watches THAT show is…I’m guessing… essentially MSM-Dems. Do they care about the distinction between Socialist-Dem and Dem-Socialist? I suspect that would lose their attention, and sound pedantic and the rightwinger would just roll over them with the usual “Venezuela! Stalin!” type shit.

I think Ocasio and Bernie and the Justice-Dems are getting it mostly right (given the limited Political-IQ of the voting public). They just harp on specific issues. Medicare for All. Free College. (although i think they need a better term than ‘free college.’ That term raises alarm bells with conservative types)

When the corpse-media asks them what is a socialist? Isnt it a murderous treasonous thing? They just calmly go “It means I’m for medicare for all, free college, a higher minimum wage, etc”

I wonder if it would behoove them to connect themselves with FDR? I dunno.
(I mean they arent ‘really’ socialists but who cares. They are as far left as we can go right now, today, in the US)

I also think I have never ever seen a Clinton-Dem do what that lady just did in that vid. The listing of the Norwegian nations. I…have…not…seen that before in that context. Ever. To me thats…..noteworthy. And yes the vile Rep talked over it and didnt address it…which is a good sign. She couldnt handle it. That list.

w
v

Lotsa good points. And I think you’re right. The embrace of the Nordic model is kinda stunning — and about time. You know I’d prefer to go further than that. But, sheeesh!! Upgrading to the Scandinavian model would be relatively awesome. That ties in with the Ocasio-Cortez response too. Repeating those programs. It does make sense . . .

Which reminds me of a recent dynamic I’ve bumped into online. I think righties are getting a message to counter this. I have no proof of that. Just a hunch. They’re starting to fight back against the idea that the Scandinavia countries are “socialist,” calling them capitalist, social welfare nations instead. They point to Venezuela as a real socialist nation, even though we all know it’s not. So, strangely enough, they get this partially correct, but for obviously sick reasons.

Basically, if it’s not a “Stalinist hell hole” of one variety or another, in their eyes, it’s not “socialist.”

Which brings me to another stance I think makes a ton of sense: We just shouldn’t care what righties think about these things. It really doesn’t matter and they’re not going to be persuaded by anything we say to begin with. Evah. IMO, our focus should be on winning hearts and minds that can be won.

That’s not right of center — with extremely rare exceptions. As in, virtually non-existent.