Is it because the authoritarian communist USSR had "socialist" (United Soviet Socialist Republic) in the name? The Soviet Union was neither socialist nor a republic.

Also, why do idiots believe the Republican campaign propaganda telling them that Joe Biden will be influenced by "socialists" in the "radical left"?

---

Reactionary right wingers have been pushing the message for decades that the two are on and the same. That Cold War propaganda stuck here in the US, there are many who have bought into that and will not learn any different. To them socialism equals communism as practiced by the former USSR, etc.

One side has a vested interest in conflating things. The End.

---

The term "socialist" has been used to describe so many different things that it is now meaningless. More to the point, repubs have been conflating the policies of social democracies such as the scandinavian countries with those of totalitarian communist regimes for years. Heck, even Bernie calls himself a socialist when in fact he is espousing social democratic views.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

People also don't know what "anarchy" means. I recently had a Trump supporter tell me that the mayor, police dept and city council of Seattle, along with the Gov Inslee, are "anarchists." She said "they hate the government!" Um. I really don't know how to help that person.

What's interesting to me is that one party has spent decades trying to tear down our democratic (little d) government, culminating in electing as president a businessman with zero government experience and total contempt for our institutions.

If they care so much for those foundational freedoms and institutions that undergird capitalism and in theory prevent an authoritarian system like communism, then why are they so intent on tearing it down??

Consistency is not their strong suit.

Neither is self-awareness, compassion, logic, or decency,

is "Socialism" means the good standard of living, freedom and economic opportunities they have in some European countries, I'll take it.

It’s necessary to take things for granted so you can find new complaints? Don’t like construction codes, yet enjoy a safer house despite not believing you’re any safer. Don’t like forced services, yet feel comforted driving past the calm fire station each day. Food safety’s a joke, but gosh didn’t that steak taste pretty good? Government schools are propaganda, but look at the job that person just got.

It’s about being selfish. A zero-sum game, where anything someone else got never comes my way.

ALL governments are socialism. It’s inherent in their purpose, which is why modern Republicans fight for anarchy and the destruction of same.

It would be good if more people understood the concept of a "mixed economy":

[www.investopedia.com]

Quote

A mixed economic system is a system that combines aspects of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system protects private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to interfere in economic activities in order to achieve social aims.
- - - - -

KEY TAKEAWAYS

*A mixed economy is an economy organized with some free market elements and some socialistic elements, which lies on a continuum somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism.
*Mixed economies typically maintain private ownership and control of most of the means of production, but often under government regulation.
*Mixed economies socialize select industries that are deemed essential or that produce public goods.
*All known historical and modern economies are examples of mixed economies, though some economists have critiqued the economic effects of various forms of mixed economy.

People don't know the difference between Socialism and Communism because they don't care to understand. They may even understand but In the minds of Americans, they've been sold on Capitalism. To most Americans, Capitalism isn't a problem. They feel like they've done well under it. America is collapsing for "other" reasons.

Americans want to be rich by and large and they don't want anything to stand in the way of that possibility. Hardly no American is interested in being average. They dream of building better and better lives until they are forced to settle where they are (too old and broken down to elevate). They want a life "better" than the guy next door. They don't feel like that's possible under Socialism.

If they don't understand what the differences are, it's totally the fault of the people that advocate for Socialism. Too busy dictating what people should accept instead of convincing people how they may benefit from it without giving up anything of value.

But if they have to give up something they've fought hard to have (private healthcare for example) in order to "collectively" provide a generic standard they'll reject it.

This is all funny because the lesson from history is that when capitalism is broken, and the divide between rich and poor continues to grow, the result is not subtle new tax laws - it's revolution.

Whether this is communism, socialism, autocracy, etc - there is ALWAYS a correction to extreme capitalism.

Arguably, the power grab by Trumpism is an end to traditional capitalism as the US has defined it.

[www.msnbc.com]

Republicans have a history of weaponizing 'socialism.' But do they understand what it is?

All these policies that were once denounced as dangerously “socialist” by Republicans have become mainstays of the American political scene.

...Back in 1952, President Harry Truman explained that “socialism” had long stood as the reflexive response of Republicans to the New Deal. It was, he charged on the campaign trail, simply “a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.” To prove his point, he rattled off an array of New Deal policies — Social Security, FDIC, price supports for farmers, public power and labor rights — that conservatives had denounced as “creeping socialism.” “Socialism,” the president argued, “is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.”

Over the next decade, conservatives pushed this same “scare word” socialism on a surprising range of programs and proposals.

When Jonas Salk developed a polio vaccine in 1955, for instance, Democrats proposed a federal program to distribute the vaccine to all American schoolchildren. Eisenhower’s secretary of health education and welfare (HEW), a Texas millionaire named Oveta Culp Hobby, objected to the plan: “That’s socialized medicine by the back door, not the front door.”...

---

Maybe if someone would explain to them via a sports analogy -- the NFL operates on socialist principles, MLB does not.

Quote
RgrF
Maybe if someone would explain to them via a sports analogy -- the NFL operates on socialist principles, MLB does not.

They're not of the mind to be receptive to that messaging. They just want the pandemic to be over enough to go to Vegas and not worry about catching a deadly virus.

Quote
vision63

Quote
RgrF
Maybe if someone would explain to them via a sports analogy -- the NFL operates on socialist principles, MLB does not.

They're not of the mind to be receptive to that messaging. They just want the pandemic to be over enough to go to Vegas and not worry about catching a deadly virus.

Wife and I are of a similar mindset, last March I bought tickets (always by round trip when visiting Vegas) for a trip last week. Figured with that long of a lead time we'd be out of woods. Waiting for the refund.