On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Sean Andrews wrote:
>
> I also think it is completely possible that few of the people
>> asked have any idea what socialism actually means.
>>
>
> I'm sure that's true. Do we have any idea what it means? We meaning us on
> this list?
>
> Has socialism, as we mean it, ever existed, in any society?
>
> Is there any policy now being pushed by any sizeable group in the US that
> we could feel content calling socialist?
>
> For example, upgraded Medicare for all -- is that a socialist program?
>
> If it isn't, then nothing is. And if nothing is, I don't see how anyone in
> the real world can be for socialism except as a religious matter.
>
> And if single payer is a socialist program, how come I've never heard a
> single person on the left ever call it such? Including me?
>
> I understand why liberals don't -- they feel it would be the kiss of death.
> But those of us who are always crying that what we want is to change the
> discourse -- why don't we call it socialist? Because socialism has to be
> distinguished from social democracy? Why is that exactly? Why isn't social
> democracy an imperfect form of socialism?
>
> Isn't that how you change a discourse? By saying that the good things we
> want imperfectly represent our ideal, but they are steps along the right
> road? They are good both in themselves and because they embody these new
> great alternative principles? That it's those principles that make them
> work?
>
> They can only be steps if they are identified with the ideal. And they can
> only be identified with the ideal if we, who identify ourselves with that
> ideal, use the same word for both. Different senses of the same word --
> that's how things get equated.
>
> But somehow, for some reason, we never do that. We never seem to want to
> soil our word.
>
> I'm just thinking about loud. I don't have an answer.
>
> It's kind of a reflection on the discussion about why the right is so much
> better at changing the discourse. They clearly talk very differently. They
> talk about every little step as if it were a blow in the capitalist
> revolution -- no matter how short it falls. Like tax cuts, which have never
> yet led to smaller government. They use them as an opportunity to champion
> the principle. And consequently they've been hammering in their principles
> for 30 years.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>