Hacker News Reader

Comment by bgarbiak | Hacker News Reader

You're implying that being called a socialist is as damning as being called a racist? Really? What is so evil about these Danes and Swedes?

View on HN

I think the term "socialist" has a different connotation in the US than in Europe. In Europe, a third of all voters (roughly) vote for parties that call themselves socialist, while these parties are really center-left, in all likeliness quite to the right in terms of what the average American considers socialist.

Moreover, there is no mainstream socialist movement in the US. Merely calling Obama a socialist does not make it true.

That's his point; it's used as a perjorative in the US where in Europe it is not (without regard to the truth of it.)

Yes, I know about these different connotations. However, painting a sort of a symmetry between these two labels is - in my humble opinion - a step too far. Imagine someone saying Arrington is a socialist. Such "accusation" would have completely different weight than labeling him as a racist.

Depending on the context (country/period) "I'm a socialist" can signify both "I want to nationalize everything, kill the conservatives and, if possible, bring in the soviet army" or "I want slightly more progressive taxes and state funded healthcare". They don't make them like they used to ...

bgarbiak does have a valid point, in that today there are few places on earth where "I'm a socialist" implies the first meaning rather than the second.

I don't disagree, but you have to remember ... some people that supported stuff like the weathermen* in their twenties now have tenure, cushy government jobs etc. A lot of these are now "moderate" social-democrats, progressives or liberals. But sometimes only in the sense a white nationalist is a republican, ie. for lack of "better" options.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

In the '50s, here in the US, being called a socialist was more damning than being called a racist. In that era, being a racist (in certain areas of the country, at least) could even be construed as an advantage.

Being a socialist (or even being accused of such) led to severe consequences, like being blackballed in your industry, hauled before a Congressional committee, or even jail time.

To a large subset of white conservative Republicans, yes, it is.

Historically, in the USA, it was. The McCarthy years were like this. Today, it isn't, but that isn't really the point of the analogy.

The people who murdered millions in the USSR also saw themselves as "building socialism". Today "socialist" merely means a Western European country bound for bankruptcy, with the formerly[1] free market US following close behind.

I suppose that's progress of a sort, but it's mystifying as to why one would claim the label, let alone the label "communist".

[1] In recent years the US has plummeted on measures of economic freedom, falling further behind Hong Kong and Singapore, and even dropping below Canada.

I'm a socialist. I claim the label because I care about social responsibility and liberal values.

Compressing socialism to USSR and bankrupt countries is really a cheap kind of rhetoric. I could respond with a brief history of Chile or a tale about bankers living on a crisis - but that's kind of misses my point, which is that a comparison between socialism and racism is greatly inadequate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com