people on this platform who support socialism don’t know what it is
Says the person who literally further down in this same thread left a comment implying that democratic socialism is the same thing as social democracy (it isn’t)
Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. […] You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism.
Which seems to quite strongly indicate you’re treating them as if they’re the same concept.
Also, your graphic is no good. It would be more accurate if Democratic Socialism was somewhere in between Social Democracy and what it labels (reductively) as merely “Socialism.”
Democratic Socialism is a type of Socialism. A person who believes in and advocates for Democratic Socialism is still a Socialist.
You don’t have to advocate for “socialism as a whole” to consider yourself a socialist. You might disagree with some types of socialism and agree with others, and you’d still be a socialist.
Just because someone is advocating for Democratic Socialism as opposed to some sort of authoritarian/accelerationist/revolutionary socialism, does not mean they’re not a socialist.
One of the great failings of the English language is the word “social” and the myriad of meanings it has, most of which are significantly different from one another.
A socialist is much like an atheist. An atheist simply doesn’t believe in God or gods. Likewise, a socialist, in the most basic sense, advocates for an economy in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned rather than privately owned by individuals or corporations.
The surrounding philosophy is a separate matter. Atheism itself does not prescribe a particular philosophy, political system, or worldview, and socialism likewise does not, by itself, tell you everything about someone’s broader political beliefs.
That is why communism can go hand in hand with socialism in much the same way that secular humanism can go hand in hand with atheism. Neither is strictly predicated upon the other, but they can coexist because they address different aspects of one’s worldview.
AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture.
You can call a car an automobile, but “automobile” doesn’t tell you whether it’s a sedan, truck, or sports car. Likewise, calling AOC a socialist is not necessarily wrong, but it omits an important distinction: she is specifically a Democratic socialist.
Again, the disclaimer and the graphic are intended to be quick references. They are not novellas, books, or even pamphlets explaining every aspect of the concepts they’re describing.
Although I will admit that I should probably revise the disclaimer somewhat to make that distinction clearer.
Nice try, but you’re trying to flip the script. I pointed out that YOU conflated Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy while trying to say that Democratic Socialists aren’t really Socialists.
I pointed that out to you, and now you’re trying to say “Oh haha, you’re saying there aren’t nuances, hahhaha.”
No, your whole spiel was a red herring designed to deflect from the original fact that you were wrong and I pointed it out, and now you’re trying to put words in my mouth as if I made the incorrect argument that in fact it was you who made?
I never said AOC wasn’t a Democratic Socialist. I said that her being a Democratic Socialist does not mean that she isn’t still a Socialist. And no amount of word play and twisted argumentation style will deflect from that.
At this point I don’t even think you know what the hell you’re talking about you just like socialism for reasons you can’t even state.
We haven’t even discussed the merits of Socialism, so it’s laughable that you would claim I “can’t even state” why I like it. And I’m not about to sit here and try to justify socialism to you, because that’s not what this conversation is about, and that’s another attempt by you to insert a red herring to deflect the conversation away from why you were wrong to begin with. And I’m not taking the bait.
AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture.
I clearly said that she is a socialist. I also said that she is a Democrat.
How can I be wrong when I explicitly said that she is a socialist?
And stop using logical fallacies. You’re unable to identify them or use them properly. You hardly even read what I said, formed the conclusion that best suited what you wanted to believe, and then ran with it with a level of overconfidence that a flat-earther would be jealous of.
So let me clarify: AOC is a socialist. Full stop. Understand? Do I have to spell it out even further?
AOC IS A SOCIALIST.
She is specifically a Democratic Socialist. Are you catching that, or are you going to tell me I’m wrong about that too? Maybe you’d like to find another logical fallacy to throw around. A Motte-and-Bailey? No True Scotsman?
Dude. You keep trying to deflect to save face from the fact that I called you out for incorrectly equating Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy. That makes everything else you’re saying a red herring. I’m not using logical fallacies incorrectly. It’s a red herring, and you keep deflecting.
It’s not a good look. It would be more honorable to just say “You know what, you’re right, Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are different things. I was wrong to try equating them.” But no, you don’t seem capable of admitting that.
So you go on multiple tirades where you spit out correct information that’s irrelevant to the discussion, as if you can then flip it around and act like I’m arguing against that instead of pointing out why you were wrong originally. And I keep telling you “Stop deflecting, that’s not what this argument is about.” And you keep doing it.
It’s like you said “ACDFGE” and I said “No, it’s ABCDEFG.” So then you respond with “But HIJKLMNO!” And I said “We’re not talking about HIJKLMNO, we’re talking about ABCDEFG.”
So you go “I SAID ‘HIJKLMNO’. Jay-zuss, you do not know what you’re talking about. I can’t believe you think HIJKLMNO is wrong.”
And I keep bringing it back by saying “This conversation is not about HIJKLMNO, and I never said HIJKLMNO is not correct. I said stop deflecting, because you said ‘ACDFGE’ and I called you out on it and said that’s wrong and you’ve been deflecting ever since.”
So what you’re doing is in fact also a motte-and-bailey. Nice job calling yourself out like that.
Says the person who literally further down in this same thread left a comment implying that democratic socialism is the same thing as social democracy (it isn’t)
I never said they’re the same thing. There are fundamental nuances that I fully understand the comprehend.
It’s just that putting all that in a short disclaimer doesn’t really fit.
The point is that people are advocating for either one of those but not socialism as a whole.
You said this:
Which seems to quite strongly indicate you’re treating them as if they’re the same concept.
Also, your graphic is no good. It would be more accurate if Democratic Socialism was somewhere in between Social Democracy and what it labels (reductively) as merely “Socialism.”
Democratic Socialism is a type of Socialism. A person who believes in and advocates for Democratic Socialism is still a Socialist.
You don’t have to advocate for “socialism as a whole” to consider yourself a socialist. You might disagree with some types of socialism and agree with others, and you’d still be a socialist.
Just because someone is advocating for Democratic Socialism as opposed to some sort of authoritarian/accelerationist/revolutionary socialism, does not mean they’re not a socialist.
One of the great failings of the English language is the word “social” and the myriad of meanings it has, most of which are significantly different from one another.
A socialist is much like an atheist. An atheist simply doesn’t believe in God or gods. Likewise, a socialist, in the most basic sense, advocates for an economy in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned rather than privately owned by individuals or corporations.
The surrounding philosophy is a separate matter. Atheism itself does not prescribe a particular philosophy, political system, or worldview, and socialism likewise does not, by itself, tell you everything about someone’s broader political beliefs.
That is why communism can go hand in hand with socialism in much the same way that secular humanism can go hand in hand with atheism. Neither is strictly predicated upon the other, but they can coexist because they address different aspects of one’s worldview.
AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture.
You can call a car an automobile, but “automobile” doesn’t tell you whether it’s a sedan, truck, or sports car. Likewise, calling AOC a socialist is not necessarily wrong, but it omits an important distinction: she is specifically a Democratic socialist.
Again, the disclaimer and the graphic are intended to be quick references. They are not novellas, books, or even pamphlets explaining every aspect of the concepts they’re describing.
Although I will admit that I should probably revise the disclaimer somewhat to make that distinction clearer.
Nice diatribe. You’re still wrong though. Attempting to distract from being wrong isn’t going to work.
Wrong about what?
That AOC is a Democratic socialist or that there are nuances and differences between Democrats, socialism and social Democrats and socialism?
At this point I don’t even think you know what the hell you’re talking about you just like socialism for reasons you can’t even state.
Nice try, but you’re trying to flip the script. I pointed out that YOU conflated Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy while trying to say that Democratic Socialists aren’t really Socialists.
I pointed that out to you, and now you’re trying to say “Oh haha, you’re saying there aren’t nuances, hahhaha.”
No, your whole spiel was a red herring designed to deflect from the original fact that you were wrong and I pointed it out, and now you’re trying to put words in my mouth as if I made the incorrect argument that in fact it was you who made?
I never said AOC wasn’t a Democratic Socialist. I said that her being a Democratic Socialist does not mean that she isn’t still a Socialist. And no amount of word play and twisted argumentation style will deflect from that.
We haven’t even discussed the merits of Socialism, so it’s laughable that you would claim I “can’t even state” why I like it. And I’m not about to sit here and try to justify socialism to you, because that’s not what this conversation is about, and that’s another attempt by you to insert a red herring to deflect the conversation away from why you were wrong to begin with. And I’m not taking the bait.
I clearly said that she is a socialist. I also said that she is a Democrat.
How can I be wrong when I explicitly said that she is a socialist?
And stop using logical fallacies. You’re unable to identify them or use them properly. You hardly even read what I said, formed the conclusion that best suited what you wanted to believe, and then ran with it with a level of overconfidence that a flat-earther would be jealous of.
So let me clarify: AOC is a socialist. Full stop. Understand? Do I have to spell it out even further?
AOC IS A SOCIALIST.
She is specifically a Democratic Socialist. Are you catching that, or are you going to tell me I’m wrong about that too? Maybe you’d like to find another logical fallacy to throw around. A Motte-and-Bailey? No True Scotsman?
Jesus.
Dude. You keep trying to deflect to save face from the fact that I called you out for incorrectly equating Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy. That makes everything else you’re saying a red herring. I’m not using logical fallacies incorrectly. It’s a red herring, and you keep deflecting.
It’s not a good look. It would be more honorable to just say “You know what, you’re right, Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are different things. I was wrong to try equating them.” But no, you don’t seem capable of admitting that.
So you go on multiple tirades where you spit out correct information that’s irrelevant to the discussion, as if you can then flip it around and act like I’m arguing against that instead of pointing out why you were wrong originally. And I keep telling you “Stop deflecting, that’s not what this argument is about.” And you keep doing it.
It’s like you said “ACDFGE” and I said “No, it’s ABCDEFG.” So then you respond with “But HIJKLMNO!” And I said “We’re not talking about HIJKLMNO, we’re talking about ABCDEFG.”
So you go “I SAID ‘HIJKLMNO’. Jay-zuss, you do not know what you’re talking about. I can’t believe you think HIJKLMNO is wrong.”
And I keep bringing it back by saying “This conversation is not about HIJKLMNO, and I never said HIJKLMNO is not correct. I said stop deflecting, because you said ‘ACDFGE’ and I called you out on it and said that’s wrong and you’ve been deflecting ever since.”
So what you’re doing is in fact also a motte-and-bailey. Nice job calling yourself out like that.