Question for dark red avatars

[AGA]

Are you actual socialists or "Democrat socialists" a la Sanders and Scandinavia?

[Dr. MB]

I just like the color

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I believe that everybody should have (and, yes, "is entitled to") a roof over their head and three square meals a day without having to justify themselves to people like Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg. And I don't much care about violating some of the orthodoxies and pieties of modern first-world policymaking to get that. Whether that makes me an "actual socialist" given that I also believe in the structures of liberal democracy is in the eye of the beholder.

[BP🌹]

While it's true that most self-proclaimed democratic socialists in America are actually succdems, accurately defined democratic socialism is "actual" socialism.

Socialism isn't a monolith. In fact, we're actually notorious for infighting. There's more variety among socialist tendencies because it's arguably only defined by not being capitalism; that is, opposition to private ownership of the means of production. That can mean many things, from state ownership to collective ownership to common ownership. Different varieties are also differentiated by whether or not the state should be abolished, and whether it should take place within a market economy or a planned economy (and whether that planning is centralized or decentralized). If it sounds complicated, I'm actually grossly oversimplifying things.

As for what specific tendency I describe to, I'm currently doing a bit of soul-searching. But I'm definitely not a capitalist.

When the average American thinks of socialism, they might be thinking of either communist states such as the Soviet Union, or generous welfare states that characterize Northern European countries. Regarding the communist states: communism is a variety of socialism that was the stated goal. Their economies are (or more accurately were characterized by central planning and state ownership, ostensibly as a step toward the eventual stateless, classless society that communists desire. Needless to say, that goal was not achieved.

As for Northern European-style welfare states, they're not truly socialist because means of production are still privately-owned.

And on top of the economic systems that I described, there are also philosophical and even scientific angles to socialist ideologies (which I admittedly know much less about) .

[AGA]

While it's true that most self-proclaimed democratic socialists in America are actually succdems, accurately defined democratic socialism is "actual" socialism.

Socialism isn't a monolith. In fact, we're actually notorious for infighting. There's more variety among socialist tendencies because it's arguably only defined by not being capitalism; that is, opposition to private ownership of the means of production. That can mean many things, from state ownership to collective ownership to common ownership. Different varieties are also differentiated by whether or not the state should be abolished, and whether it should take place within a market economy or a planned economy (and whether that planning is centralized or decentralized). If it sounds complicated, I'm actually grossly oversimplifying things.

As for what specific tendency I describe to, I'm currently doing a bit of soul-searching. But I'm definitely not a capitalist.

When the average American thinks of socialism, they might be thinking of either communist states such as the Soviet Union, or generous welfare states that characterize Northern European countries. Regarding the communist states: communism is a variety of socialism that was the stated goal. Their economies are (or more accurately were characterized by central planning and state ownership, ostensibly as a step toward the eventual stateless, classless society that communists desire. Needless to say, that goal was not achieved.

As for Northern European-style welfare states, they're not truly socialist because means of production are still privately-owned.

Yes, this is kind of what I meant by this question.

[BP🌹]

Okay. Your question is more specifically whether we're social democrats (or even liberals), or socialists. I'm definitely the latter, and probably the minority among maroon avatars.

Socialists like me exclude succdems not merely because of ideological dogma without regard for people's everyday lives, unlike what some people are suggesting. We exclude them because while very generous social safety nets and wealth distribution are good things, they're not sufficient by themselves. We believe that true liberation of the masses entails seizing the means of production, and fundamentally restructuring the economy and society. That also means doing away with liberal "democracy", and adhering to a socialist internationalist foreign policy instead of an imperialist one (assuming that states still exist).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems are a socialist, secular, progressive,  pragmatic party.  Karl Marx was the founder of the Dem party, but along with Bryan-Jennings they were hybrids, due to the slavery issue. Only in the modern era, is it the true secular party, Blue v Red, due to the Cold War