What is Social Ownership?

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.


https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/

And who supports it in the US?

Do crickets support social ownership?

Who would own a brewery with social ownership being mandatory?

Socialism espouses caring & sharing.
As does religion  -  and large swathes of the USA are in the religious belt.

So I don't get why they have such a gut reaction against socialism. Doesn't add up.

I’d love to chip in but I like to make sure I get what’s going on first. I’ll await further clarification or a very simplified nutshell.

Do breweries control ... rent is too damn high?

You can't understand where these people are coming from if you leave this out this crucial bit! "We believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect."

That's not a radical idea; that's utilitarianism, the idea that social order should provide the greatest good for the greatest number. Or to put it a bit more eloquently:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Jules wrote:Socialism espouses caring & sharing.
As does religion  -  and large swathes of the USA are in the religious belt.

So I don't get why they have such a gut reaction against socialism. Doesn't add up.

McCarthyism. And most Americans don't understand socialism and confuse it with Marxism.

Socialism espouses caring/sharing ? Yes it does, for those at the top and their friends !

Jules wrote:Socialism espouses caring & sharing.
As does religion  -  and large swathes of the USA are in the religious belt.

So I don't get why they have such a gut reaction against socialism. Doesn't add up.

Is the sharing voluntary?

Ben Reilly wrote:Do breweries control ... rent is too damn high?

You can't understand where these people are coming from if you leave this out this crucial bit! "We believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect."

That's not a radical idea; that's utilitarianism, the idea that social order should provide the greatest good for the greatest number. Or to put it a bit more eloquently:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So the constitution is promoting social ownership of property?

Original Quill wrote:

Jules wrote:Socialism espouses caring & sharing.
As does religion  -  and large swathes of the USA are in the religious belt.

So I don't get why they have such a gut reaction against socialism. Doesn't add up.

McCarthyism.  And most Americans don't understand socialism and confuse it with Marxism.

Do the Democratic Socialists of America understand socialism Dr Mitty?

eddie wrote:I’d love to chip in but I like to make sure I get what’s going on first. I’ll await further clarification or a very simplified nutshell.

Who should be allowed to own the means of production ?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

McCarthyism. And most Americans don't understand socialism and confuse it with Marxism.

Do the Democratic Socialists of America understand socialism Dr Mitty?

Very well, Redneck. It's not a difficult concept. In America, unfortunately, it got all wound up in the Cold War, McCarthyism and the hatred for Russian Soviet Bolshevism. So it was confused with a kind of political theory.

It's not a political theory, but an economic theory. Divorce it from communism and you've got a very simple idea: a collective of people provide the capital, and don't try to extract a profit. Once profit is removed, all income off production is either return of labor, or return from land, or return on entrepreneurship...the other three elements of production.

We use socialism all the time in the US. The military, the fire services, the ambulances, airports, highways...anything that we want to make happen, we do it ourselves, turning the system into socialism. When the government does a bail-out for banks, or mid-western farmers, we are merely doing socialism for the big guys. (Which is alright for them, as long as you don't do it for the little people.)

Because Americans think socialism is a form of government, rather than an economic theory, they don’t recognize right under their own noses.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Do breweries control ... rent is too damn high?

You can't understand where these people are coming from if you leave this out this crucial bit! "We believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect."

That's not a radical idea; that's utilitarianism, the idea that social order should provide the greatest good for the greatest number. Or to put it a bit more eloquently:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So the constitution is promoting social ownership of property?

No, it promotes the idea that society should be run in a way that provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number of its people. A country not concerned with doing that doesn't worry about things like justice, domestic tranquility, common defence, general welfare, liberty, etc., does it?

The opposite of a utilitarian society is a society ruled by the powerful for its own benefit, with no concern for the well-being of the powerless.

That's the essence of liberalism -- that everyone should benefit from being a member of a society, rather than a few powerful people. And that's why liberals come out with ideas like greater worker ownership of the companies that affect their lives so profoundly.

At the end of the day, it's an idea. It might work, it might not. But it's predicated on another idea; that human beings have the capacity to improve the societies in which they live. That's another difference from conservatism, which tends toward nihilism when it comes to the question of whether we can make the world a better place.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So the constitution is promoting social ownership of property?

No, it promotes the idea that society should be run in a way that provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number of its people. A country not concerned with doing that doesn't worry about things like justice, domestic tranquility, common defence, general welfare, liberty, etc., does it?

The opposite of a utilitarian society is a society ruled by the powerful for its own benefit, with no concern for the well-being of the powerless.

That's the essence of liberalism -- that everyone should benefit from being a member of a society, rather than a few powerful people. And that's why liberals come out with ideas like greater worker ownership of the companies that affect their lives so profoundly.

At the end of the day, it's an idea. It might work, it might not. But it's predicated on another idea; that human beings have the capacity to improve the societies in which they live. That's another difference from conservatism, which tends toward nihilism when it comes to the question of whether we can make the world a better place.

No it doesn't. It doesnt mention how society shoukd be rin ar all. It's a document that limits the force tjat government can use on its citizens.

Now if the citizens want to voluntarily use social ownership, it allows for them to do that.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So the constitution is promoting social ownership of property?

No, it promotes the idea that society should be run in a way that provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number of its people. A country not concerned with doing that doesn't worry about things like justice, domestic tranquility, common defence, general welfare, liberty, etc., does it?

The opposite of a utilitarian society is a society ruled by the powerful for its own benefit, with no concern for the well-being of the powerless.

That's the essence of liberalism -- that everyone should benefit from being a member of a society, rather than a few powerful people. And that's why liberals come out with ideas like greater worker ownership of the companies that affect their lives so profoundly.

At the end of the day, it's an idea. It might work, it might not. But it's predicated on another idea; that human beings have the capacity to improve the societies in which they live. That's another difference from conservatism, which tends toward nihilism when it comes to the question of whether we can make the world a better place.

No it doesn't. It doesnt mention how society shoukd be rin ar all. It's a document that limits the force tjat government can use on its citizens.  

Now if the citizens want to voluntarily use social ownership, it allows for them to do that.  

It limits the force that government can use on its citizens because of the utilitarian values expressed in the preamble. The Founders, accustomed to the rule of a largely unchecked king, felt people would be far happier with the type of government they set out to establish.

You have to look at the values that drive the policies rather than fixate on the policies themselves, which change as society changes.

If the Founders were simply interested in founding a country with a weak government, they wouldn't have abandoned the Articles of Confederation.

And Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have written:

I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country.

... if he felt the wealthy elite should be able to push around a weak, toothless government, would he?

Maddog wrote:

Jules wrote:Socialism espouses caring & sharing.
As does religion  -  and large swathes of the USA are in the religious belt.

So I don't get why they have such a gut reaction against socialism. Doesn't add up.

Is the sharing voluntary?

No, you don't seek individual consent for this. That would be unworkable.
You seek general consensus - this is how laws are made.

Socialism is a nuanced term and in America in particular it's often treated as a dirty word, evoking a mental image of hardworking folk bring forced to share the fruits of their labour with feckless ne'er do well's. But in reality some degree of 'sharing' is always required to make a community function.

Feudal lords living in huge mansions in the middle ages in Britain used to knock on the doors of poor village people in the middle of harsh winters and give them food parcels to keep them alive. Not through affection but for practical reasons. Cos if the poor starved to death, who would do all the menial work on the massive farms of these owners and create their wealth for them?

General Concensus that's how laws are made, not when it came to the referendum it wasn't !

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No it doesn't. It doesnt mention how society shoukd be rin ar all. It's a document that limits the force tjat government can use on its citizens.  

Now if the citizens want to voluntarily use social ownership, it allows for them to do that.  

It limits the force that government can use on its citizens because of the utilitarian values expressed in the preamble. The Founders, accustomed to the rule of a largely unchecked king, felt people would be far happier with the type of government they set out to establish.

You have to look at the values that drive the policies rather than fixate on the policies themselves, which change as society changes.

If the Founders were simply interested in founding a country with a weak government, they wouldn't have abandoned the Articles of Confederation.

And Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have written:

I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country.

... if he felt the wealthy elite should be able to push around a weak, toothless government, would he?

No, he felt the government would be so small that they wouldn't bother.  

And the "we" be was referring to was never the federal government.

Read the last amendment. That tells you all you need to k is in what they envisioned.

Jules wrote:Socialism is a nuanced term and in America in particular it's often treated as a dirty word, evoking a mental image of hardworking folk bring forced to share the fruits of their labour with feckless ne'er do well's. But in reality some degree of 'sharing' is always required to make a community function.

Feudal lords living in huge mansions in the middle ages in Britain used to knock on the doors of poor village people in the middle of harsh winters and give them food parcels to keep them alive. Not through affection but for practical reasons. Cos if the poor starved to death, who would do all the menial work on the massive farms of these owners and create their wealth for them?

I took my comment directly from the Democratic Socialist of America page.

Why would a party be talking about wanting social ownership when it's already perfectly legal?

Maddog wrote:

Jules wrote:Socialism is a nuanced term and in America in particular it's often treated as a dirty word, evoking a mental image of hardworking folk bring forced to share the fruits of their labour with feckless ne'er do well's. But in reality some degree of 'sharing' is always required to make a community function.

Feudal lords living in huge mansions in the middle ages in Britain used to knock on the doors of poor village people in the middle of harsh winters and give them food parcels to keep them alive. Not through affection but for practical reasons. Cos if the poor starved to death, who would do all the menial work on the massive farms of these owners and create their wealth for them?

I took my comment directly from the Democratic Socialist  of America page.  

Why would a party be talking about wanting social ownership when it's already perfectly legal?

You got your passage from a specific response to a specific question.  Let's broaden the discussion: here is the mission statement of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA):

Democratic Socialist of America wrote:Who We Are & What We Do

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few. We are a political and activist organization, not a party; through campus and community-based chapters, DSA members use a variety of tactics, from legislative to direct action, to fight for reforms that empower working people.

Politics is inherently adversarial.  Why do social activists argue for anything when it is already legal?  Why do the Koch Bros. invest so much money when the Republicans are already in office?  “Legal” isn’t the standard; policy is what advocates want.  Politics is an on-going conversation, and can change at any moment.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I took my comment directly from the Democratic Socialist  of America page.  

Why would a party be talking about wanting social ownership when it's already perfectly legal?

You got your passage from a specific response to a specific question.  Let's broaden the discussion: here is the mission statement of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA):

Democratic Socialist of America wrote:Who We Are & What We Do

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few. We are a political and activist organization, not a party; through campus and community-based chapters, DSA members use a variety of tactics, from legislative to direct action, to fight for reforms that empower working people.

Politics is inherently adversarial.  Why do social activists argue for anything when it is already legal?  Why do the Koch Bros. invest so much money when the Republicans are already in office?  “Legal” isn’t the standard; policy is what advocates want.  Politics is an on-going conversation, and can change at any moment.

So the DSA is fighting to keep social ownership legal? Is anyone trying to make it illegal?

Of course not. What they want is to make it a requirement.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You got your passage from a specific response to a specific question.  Let's broaden the discussion: here is the mission statement of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA):



Politics is inherently adversarial.  Why do social activists argue for anything when it is already legal?  Why do the Koch Bros. invest so much money when the Republicans are already in office?  “Legal” isn’t the standard; policy is what advocates want.  Politics is an on-going conversation, and can change at any moment.

So the DSA is fighting to keep social ownership legal? Is anyone trying to make it illegal?

Of course not.  What they want is to make it a requirement.  

As you yourself amply demonstrate, politics is always in motion. Socialism is unpopular in certain circles. You would make socialism illegal if you could. Trump thinks socialism is a swear word to toss at the left. Capitalists know it is a poison to them, hence the Koch Bros. finance programs to oppose socialism. So the DSA talks back.

You are trying to fit an absolutist argument into a relativistic framework. Nobody is trying to do anything absolute, but everyone is pulling for their own side.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So the DSA is fighting to keep social ownership legal? Is anyone trying to make it illegal?

Of course not.  What they want is to make it a requirement.  

As you yourself amply demonstrate, politics is always in motion.  Socialism is unpopular in certain circles.  You would make socialism illegal if you could.  Trump thinks socialism is a swear word to toss at the left.  Capitalists know it is a poison to them, hence the Koch Bros. finance programs to oppose socialism.  So the DSA talks back.

You are trying to fit an absolutist argument into a relativistic framework.  Nobody is trying to do anything absolute, but everyone is pulling for their own side.

I would never make social ownership illegal. I don't care if you form a kibbutz with your neighbors.

Heck, most Co-ops are a form of social ownership. I'm fine with them.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As you yourself amply demonstrate, politics is always in motion.  Socialism is unpopular in certain circles.  You would make socialism illegal if you could.  Trump thinks socialism is a swear word to toss at the left.  Capitalists know it is a poison to them, hence the Koch Bros. finance programs to oppose socialism.  So the DSA talks back.

You are trying to fit an absolutist argument into a relativistic framework.  Nobody is trying to do anything absolute, but everyone is pulling for their own side.

I would never make social ownership illegal. I don't care if you form a kibbutz with your neighbors.  

Heck, most Co-ops are a form of social ownership. I'm fine with them.  

I would think my positions on leaving people the fuck alone would be well known to you by now.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As you yourself amply demonstrate, politics is always in motion.  Socialism is unpopular in certain circles.  You would make socialism illegal if you could.  Trump thinks socialism is a swear word to toss at the left.  Capitalists know it is a poison to them, hence the Koch Bros. finance programs to oppose socialism.  So the DSA talks back.

You are trying to fit an absolutist argument into a relativistic framework.  Nobody is trying to do anything absolute, but everyone is pulling for their own side.

I would never make social ownership illegal. I don't care if you form a kibbutz with your neighbors.  

Heck, most Co-ops are a form of social ownership. I'm fine with them.  

Then why raise the issue? The DSA is certainly not opting for any absolutist position. I'm not. You're not. Why bother with the question?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I would never make social ownership illegal. I don't care if you form a kibbutz with your neighbors.  

Heck, most Co-ops are a form of social ownership. I'm fine with them.  

Then why raise the issue?  The DSA is certainly not opting for any absolutist position.  I'm not.  You're not.  Why bother with the question?

What is their position on social ownership?

"In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations"


Straight from their site. What are their long term goals based on this comment?

Article II. Purpose

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.


Also from their site.

Maddog wrote:Article II. Purpose

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.


Also from their site.

That item sounds like a premise put forward by a year 9 debating team...

Any wonder that so many mainstream Democrats distance themselves from those noisy young Turks on the far-left extremes..

You can bet that the same people may be wording their aims better with another decade and a bit of real world experience behind them -- if they're still there.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Then why raise the issue?  The DSA is certainly not opting for any absolutist position.  I'm not.  You're not.  Why bother with the question?

What is their position on social ownership?

They are open to it...same as you.

'Wolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:Article II. Purpose

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.


Also from their site.

That item sounds like a premise put forward by a year 9 debating team...

Any wonder that so many mainstream Democrats distance themselves from those noisy young Turks on the far-left extremes..

You can bet that the same people may be wording their aims better with another decade and a bit of real world experience behind them --  if they're still there.

There has been a socialist party if some sort here for 100 years.

They do sound dumb. That's why I like to remind people that liberalism or being a Democrat isn't the same as being a Democratic Socialist. Their stance is to abolish private ownership of the means of production.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What is their position on social ownership?

They are open to it...same as you.

Nope. They believe it should be the only form of ownership.

Maddog wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:Article II. Purpose

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.


Also from their site.

That item sounds like a premise put forward by a year 9 debating team...

Any wonder that so many mainstream Democrats distance themselves from those noisy young Turks on the far-left extremes..

You can bet that the same people may be wording their aims better with another decade and a bit of real world experience behind them --  if they're still there.

There has been a socialist party if some sort here for 100 years.  

They do sound dumb.  That's why I like to remind people that liberalism or being a Democrat isn't the same as being a Democratic Socialist.  Their stance is to abolish private ownership of the means of production.  

Not anywhere on the page can you find "private ownership," "means of production," or especially, "abolish." That's a misrepresentation.

You can find this phrase (emphasis mine):

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.

You can't have any market mechanisms at work if you've abolished private ownership, full stop. It sounds more to me like this group believes in granting, through direct or government action, more say to workers over the actions of their employers.

That could be as radical as voting for your boss or as mainstream as tighter regulations on workplace safety, hours, wages, etc. as seen through most of the developed world.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There has been a socialist party if some sort here for 100 years.  

They do sound dumb.  That's why I like to remind people that liberalism or being a Democrat isn't the same as being a Democratic Socialist.  Their stance is to abolish private ownership of the means of production.  

Not anywhere on the page can you find "private ownership," "means of production," or especially, "abolish." That's a misrepresentation.

You can find this phrase (emphasis mine):

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.

You can't have any market mechanisms at work if you've abolished private ownership, full stop. It sounds more to me like this group believes in granting, through direct or government action, more say to workers over the actions of their employers.

That could be as radical as voting for your boss or as mainstream as tighter regulations on workplace safety, hours, wages, etc. as seen through most of the developed world.

No, just private profit. Can't have that if there isn't private ownership.

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit

Just stop.

"In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations"


What would be the long term goals?

Maddog wrote:We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit

Just stop.

I think you're leaving out an important couple of words there, "based on." You can still have private profit without having an economic order that's based on it, can't you?

It'd be a bit like me saying, "It's time that America wasn't dominated by white men," and you acting as though I called for white men to be criminalized.

Maddog wrote:We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit

Just stop.

I agree with them. An economic order based solely on private profit would be self-destructive. There have got to be economic regulations. As I said, that's what the Clayton and Sherman Acts are for.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit

Just stop.

I agree with them.  An economic order based solely on private profit would be self-destructive.  There have got to be economic regulations.  As I said, that's what the Clayton and Sherman Acts are for.

The word solely is not in there.

Nice try.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit

Just stop.

I think you're leaving out an important couple of words there, "based on." You can still have private profit without having an economic order that's based on it, can't you?

It'd be a bit like me saying, "It's time that America wasn't dominated by white men," and you acting as though I called for white men to be criminalized.

I think you're being silly trying to twist words to defend socialism.

It's very clear what the groups goals are to anyone that takes an honest approach to their clearly stated positions.

Maddog wrote:"In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations"


What would be the long term goals?

Crickets from the gymnastic team.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree with them. An economic order based solely on private profit would be self-destructive. There have got to be economic regulations. As I said, that's what the Clayton and Sherman Acts are for.

The word solely is not in there.

Nor is the opposite word to "solely" in there. This is not a textual argument, Redneck. My use of the word "solely" is my use of the word! I am saying "An economic order based solely on private profit would be self-destructive." It's not a quote, but a commentary.

It is you who is trying to put words into the mouth of the DSA. You want to distort the words of the DSA into advocating for exclusion of free markets. Contextually, what the DSA stands for is neither socialism nor capitalism exclusively. But it is arguing for allowance for socialist organization. Again, we actually accept this openly when we socially organize our US Military. The DSA is simply trying to educate the general public that socialist organization is not an anathema. It's merely an alternative.

What is interesting is the degree of paranoia that you exhibit in the face of the DSA merely trying to educate people about socialism. You go to the walls, not necessarily to defend capitalism, but to defend one of the pillars of conservatism: that socialism is inherently evil. Your real thesis isn’t that socialism is for eradicating free markets, but that you want to eradicate socialism. You advocate acceptance of socialism-as-evil, and you project your own motives onto the DSA’s motives. In an act of self-cover, you accuse the DSA of doing exactly what you want on the other side: the eradication of socialism. That's quite a Trumpian projection.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The word solely is not in there.

Nor is the opposite word to "solely" in there.  This is not a textual argument, Redneck.  My use of the word "solely" is my use of the word!  I am saying "An economic order based solely on private profit would be self-destructive."  It's not a quote, but a commentary.

It is you who is trying to put words into the mouth of the DSA.  You want to distort the words of the DSA into advocating for exclusion of free markets.  Contextually, what the DSA stands for is neither socialism nor capitalism exclusively.  But it is arguing for allowance for socialist organization.  Again, we actually accept this openly when we socially organize our US Military.  The DSA is simply trying to educate the general public that socialist organization is not an anathema.  It's merely an alternative.

What is interesting is the degree of paranoia that you exhibit in the face of the DSA merely trying to educate people about socialism.  You go to the walls, not necessarily to defend capitalism, but to defend one of the pillars of conservatism: that socialism is inherently evil.  Your real thesis isn’t that socialism is for eradicating free markets, but that you want to eradicate socialism.  You advocate acceptance of socialism-as-evil, and you project your own motives onto the DSA’s motives. In an act of self-cover, you accuse the DSA of doing exactly what you want on the other side: the eradication of socialism.  That's quite a Trumpian projection.