Sanders-Endorsed Candidate Rejects 'Socialist' Label: 'Are You Fucking Kidding Me?'

Ben Jealous, who's running for governor of Maryland, prefers the label "venture capitalist."


Maryland's Democratic nominee for governor had a pointed response when asked today if he's a socialist.

"Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you identify with the term socialist?" Washington Post reporter Erin Cox asked Ben Jealous at a press conference. The Republican incumbent, Larry Hogan, recently called his Democratic challenger a "far-left socialist who wants to increase the state budget by 100 percent."

"Are you fucking kidding me? Is that a fine enough point?" Jealous responded.

Jealous has been endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), arguably the most well-known democratic socialist in the country. But he doesn't like the s-word himself, claiming instead to be a "venture capitalist."


Before lashing out at Cox, Jealous explained why he thinks Hogan is using the socialism label. "Calling me a far-left socialist is what the Tea Party called President Obama. It's what Barry Goldwater called Martin Luther King," said Jealous, a former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "When you see conservatives like Hogan name-calling, you realize that they're scared—that they're, frankly, afraid of the change that all of our families need."

Jealous later took to Twitter to apologize for using "inappropriate language" in his response to Cox. He stood by his denial, though. "I'm a venture capitalist, not a socialist. I have never referred to myself as a socialist nor would I govern as one," Jealous wrote.

NEXT: ICE Lies About Van Crash Involving Separated Mothers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Team Blue: “Those people on the other team, they’re all Nazis!”
    Team Red: “Those people on the other team, they’re all Socialists!”

    It’s like we’re reliving the 1930’s all over again

    1. Why would anyone think the Democrats are Socialists?…..uAJnLjVUM:

    2. Why would anyone think such a thing?…..socialists…..trump.html

      It is just a slander Jeff. Only the crazy right wing would think that any Democrats are socialists.

      1. Maybe your team should have done a better job selling capitalism over the past 30 years instead of making it seem like a machine built to exploit everyone except the top 1%.

        1. Yeah, I suppose the fact Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and improved living standards worldwide isn’t a good selling point. Best to stick to the old systems that have repeatedly failed.

          1. No no Antilles, the old systems didn’t fail, per se. They just didn’t have the right people in charge.

          2. It helped, but it was hardly the only factor. The postwar expansion of human well-being happened with a great assist from massive government spending and very high marginal tax rates.

            1. It started in the 1800s when governments had little to do with it. UK didn’t implement NHS til the 1940s. FDR’s New Deal was in the 1930s.

              Perhaps you need to learn a little.

              1. The more I think on it, the more I wonder if you think at all. Governments of the 1800s didn’t have enough money to lavish on social programs until capitalism made society wealthy beyond everybody’s imagination. You can’t soak the rich when the rich are few and synonymous with government. Government had to wait for the middle class to become so big that there was enough tax money to squander.

                Crap you are dumb, and ignorant. Wise up, eh?

            2. Cite please you uneducated rube.

            3. massive government spending

              No, government spending was far lower on an inflation-adjusted basis, both in total and per-capita numbers.

          3. Noting that “the world is more prosperous than ever before and yet our societies are marked by uncertainty and unease,” the president wrote that, “it is important to remember that capitalism has been the greatest driver of prosperity and opportunity the world has ever seen.”

            In his essay Thursday in the Economist, a 173-year-old British newspaper which openly advocates for free trade and free markets, the president vowed to pass major trade deals with Asian and South American countries, as well as the European Union.

            Obama on Free Trade


            1. Thanks to Obama’s horrible blunders as President, we got a great President- Trump.

            2. Yep, and remember when he said he was going to make immigration the major priority of his first term as President? He was a truthy guy long before he mentioned keeping your doctor if you liked them.

        2. Capitalism sells itself.


          December 30, 1988 $ 2168.57

          August 3, 2018 $25462.58

          Too bad you invested all your rubles in Soviet pork belly futures.

    3. The important thing is, both sides are absolute and solid blocks of belief. Adhering strictly to a party line, with no dissent.

      1. But a significant portion of Democrats are self-professed socialists. No Republican claims to be a National Socialist. So the two charges are not the same.

        1. Chemjeff using false equivalence in an argument?????


        2. I won’t try to speak for what ChemJeff was saying, he will hopefully be a long himself, but my core issue is with painting either side as homogenous of belief.

          Even in your example, of self-described socialists. When you break down what they mean by socialist there is variety in belief there. It’s not monolithic, and the tendency to simply call your opponent a name is neither helpful nor descriptive.

          1. If a significant portion of a party’s membership calls themselves socialists, calling that party “socialists” isn’t really a slander. There are just as many varieties of Libertarianism as socialism. Does that mean calling the Libertarian Party “Libertarians” is a generalization? I don’t think so.

            1. And I’m saying that the majority of any large scale labeling is not done to meaningfully clarify beliefs. It’s to create a label, and then each individual has their straw version, libertarian/socialist/nazi whatever.

              It’s not useful when discussing things because many of these labels describe such a vague and varied set of possible beliefs that it’s equivalent to name calling. It being used as an insult is annoying, but is secondary to the fact that is it does not convey much information, but leads people to believe it does.

              1. And I’m saying that the majority of any large scale labeling is not done to meaningfully clarify beliefs. It’s to create a label, and then each individual has their straw version, libertarian/socialist/nazi whatever.

                You have to describe people somehow. Some labels are more accurate than others. All labels are to some degree inaccurate. The Democrats claim to be socialists. Using that label for them while not perfectly accurate is fairly accurate and certainly orders of magnitude more accurate than calling Republicans Nazis.

            2. it’s not slander, if anything it’s being too kind to the members who are downright fascist

              as Thomas Sowell put it…

              It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a ‘socialist.’ He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and he wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

              What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

              1. Your comment hinges upon the proposition that there is one, and only one, universally agreed upon conception and definition of socialism.

                That is not the case.

                Nevertheless, even under the definition favored by Sowell, ownership of the means of production, socialism includes, and, in order to be accurate, must include, things like regulations and taxes.

              2. Sowell is an idiot who ignored Bush’s TARP, Medicare Welfare Part D, American Dream Downpayment Act (to hand out $10,000 per first time homebuyers) and all the other Big Gov programs.

            3. Okay, John.

              43% of Republicans want to give Trump to punish media organizations that engage in ‘bad behavior’.

              So I guess it’s fair, then, to claim that Republicans are authoritarian assholes when it comes to freedom of the press.

              And since you’re a Republican, I guess that makes you an authoritarian asshole who hates freedom of the press.

              Right? Right?

              1. So I guess it’s fair, then, to claim that Republicans are authoritarian assholes when it comes to freedom of the press.

                Sure. Assuming that poll is true. I seriously doubt it is Why do you think otherwise?

                1. John, why do you hate freedom of the press?

                  1. I don’t. But apparently, a lot of Republicans do, if what you are saying is true. The fact that I don’t doesn’t change that fact. Try doing the same with Democrats and socialism you fucking moron. God you are stupid. Just dumb as a post.

                    1. Oh I see John. So it’s okay for Republicans to have differentiated and nuanced beliefs on complex issues, like freedom of the press, but for Democrats, all must be smeared with the broad brush of its craziest members. Got it.

                    2. You don’t see anything. My beliefs are my own. Whatever generalities you can make about Republicans doesn’t mean I must hold those beliefs.

                      Just because you claim you are not a socialist doesn’t mean a huge number of Democrats are not. They are. Your claiming “but I am not a socialist and I am a Democrat” doesn’t prove anything other than how stupid you are.

                    3. Whatever generalities you can make about Republicans doesn’t mean I must hold those beliefs.

                      But it’s okay to smear all Democrats as socialists. Such as when you write, mockingly, Why would anyone think the Democrats are Socialists?

                      One set of rules for me, and another set of rules for thee.

                    4. But it’s okay to smear all Democrats as socialists

                      If a large percentage of them are, sure. That, however, doesn’t mean every Democrat is a socialist. But it does mean that the ones who are not, are not bothered by being associated with people who are. If they were, they wouldn’t be Democrats.

                      This is simple stuff. You don’t really seem to have any point here. You just keep moving the goal posts to deny the truth that a large number of Democrats are socialists and proud of being so.

              2. So I guess it’s fair, then, to claim that Republicans are authoritarian assholes when it comes to freedom of the press.

                Well, when CNN is publishing op-eds demanding that “hate speech” be defined as a form of terrorism, threatens to dox anons who create goofy gifs about them, and when Gawker doxes gun owners, it’s not hard to see why Republicans would get the impression that the press is out to get them.

                Or does the “no freedom from consequences” argument only apply to the “free speech” section of the 1st Amendment?

            4. I don’t know how calling someone a ‘socialist’ – which describes a socio-economic organizational system – can even remotely be considered ‘name-calling’ or ‘slander’. It’s not like calling someone a sheep fucker. It’s simply describing the way someone thinks about economic policy. Of course, if deep down you know its stupid, wrong, doesn’t work, led to deaths of untold millions, etc and you’re embarrassed to admit that you still adhere to it, I can understand why you’d be upset, but that’s your problem.

              1. What Restoras said. It is not a slander. It is a description.

              2. The Socialists know that if their actual political beliefs are locked into Socialism, that the average Sheeple will catch on and not vote them into office.

          2. No no, BUCS.
            If John wants to insist that every Democrat should bear the burden of the opinions of their craziest members, then John should be held to that standard himself as a Republican.

            So all I have to do is find a few self-proclaims Republicans who really are Nazis, and then that makes John a Nazi by extension.

            Isn’t that right John?

            1. So only crazy Democrats call themselves socialists? The links above say otherwise. You are just engaging in the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Anyone who holds a view you don’t like is “not a real Democrat”. You being simple-minded find the fallacy appealing. No one else does.

              1. Oh no. They are real Democrats.

                Some Democrats are socialists.

                Not all Democrats are socialists.

                See the difference?

                Otherwise, I’ll have to start calling you a White Supremacist, just like your fellow Republican, David Duke.

                1. Some Democrats are socialists.

                  Not all Democrats are socialists.

                  Next you’ll be arguing that the Soviet Union and Mao’s China weren’t Communist countries.

            2. After all, David Duke is a self-proclaimed white supremacist who actually ran for office as a Republican.

              So by the Transitive Law of Group Association,

              White Supremacy

              1. Oh shoot. Tried to use arrows. Let me try that again:

                By the Transitive Law of Group Association:

                White Supremacy < -- > David Duke < -- > Republicans < -- > John

                Ergo, John is a White Supremacist.


                1. David Duke is a failed troll who has no support in the Republican Party. Bernie Sanders is arguably the most popular Democrat in America. One does not equal the other.

                  You really don’t know how logic and rational argument work do you? You pull the same sorts of sophistry and logical fallacies all of the time. And you never learn or get any better. How many times do you have to be curb stomped on here before you learn how to make better arguments?

                  1. How many times do you have to be curb stomped on here before you learn how to make better arguments?

                    In fairness, John, it’s difficult to make solid arguments when I’m arguing against someone who has the intellectual consistency of jello.

                    1. You can’t make solid arguments because you are stupid. I am being very consistent. You are just a fucking moron who is too dishonest to walk away from a losing argument.

                    2. Uh-oh. John is getting cranky. Looks like it’s time for John to take his nap.

              2. After all, David Duke is a self-proclaimed white supremacist who actually ran for office as a Republican.

                David Duke has never won an election in his life. Bernie Sanders has been in the Senate for decades and almost won the Democratic nomination. If Democrats are not socialist, how did Bernie get all of those votes? If the day ever comes that David Duke gets in the Senate and comes in second in the GOP primaries for President, you can fairly call the GOP White Supremacist. But that hasn’t happened. So your false equivalence is not going to work.

                1. Actually, David Duke won an election to serve in the Louisiana state legislature. As a Republican.

                  And now you’re shifting the goalposts. So what level of electoral success by one member of the party is required in order to justify smearing everyone of the party as having identical beliefs as that member? Senator? House member? Governor?

                  If the day ever comes that David Duke gets in the Senate and comes in second in the GOP primaries for President, you can fairly call the GOP White Supremacist.

                  So can we say that the GOP is “pro-adultery” and “pro-prostitution” because of who they elected president?

                  1. o can we say that the GOP is “pro-adultery” and “pro-prostitution” because of who they elected president?

                    Bill Clinton was a Democrat dude. Neither party gives a shit about their politician’s private lives. So what?

                    And I am not shifting goalposts. Because you find one guy who was served in the legislature 30 years ago, you can not say that he represents the GOP in the same way as the most popular Democrat in America. Bernie Sanders in every poll the most popular Democrat in America. And he is a socialist. You cannot say that because David Duke got elected to a state legislature one time 30 years ago that calling Republicans white supremacist is just as valid as calling Democrats Socialists. You can say that if you are really stupid and dishonest. And that is what you are.

                    How many more times do you have to lose this argument?

                    1. Oh there’s plenty more examples than just David Duke.

                      How about Denny Hastert? Republican Speaker of the House, evidently had a thing for young boys. Can we now claim that GOP is “pro-child-molestation”?

                      How about Eric Greitens? Republican Governor of Missouri, who had an affair, lied about it, and threatened to blackmail his lover if she told anyone. Can we now claim that the GOP is “pro-extortion”?

                      How about Chris Collins? Republican House member, just indicted on insider trading charges. Can we now claim that the GOP is “pro-corruption”?

                      The real point is, labeling an entire group based on the actions or beliefs of a few is unfair and wrong. It’s wrong when it’s done to Republicans, and it’s wrong when it’s done to Democrats.

                      But I know that there are some people who are so invested in tribal warfare that they will try to justify it on behalf of the “other” tribe, while objecting to it on behalf of “their” tribe. That is what you are doing, John.

                    2. How about Denny Hastert? Republican Speaker of the House, evidently had a thing for young boys. Can we now claim that GOP is “pro-child-molestation”?

                      No because they didn’t know he was one when he was in office and would have thrown him out if they had known. You can’t say they are “pro something” when they didn’t know it.

                      All of your examples are of bad behavior by Republicans that resulted in the person being disavowed by the party at large. Or in the case of the Missouri governor, some people not believing it is true. That is not the same as the GOP embracing something. We are talking about ideology that Democrats openly embrace. No one is kicking Sanders out of the party for being a socialist.

                      This arguement manages to be even worse than David Duke. You can’t be this stupid.

                    3. Did I ever tell you guys about the time David Duke came to Massachusetts to give a speech in 1992?

                      I knew a couple of knuckleheads who were going to the speech and David Duke was giving the speech at a hotel literally a hundred yards from my office. So, I ventured down the street, went into the hotel parking lot and I was somewhat dumbfounded to see hundreds of what we know would call anti-fascists as well as BLM and Occupy precursors.

                      LM did not make it into the speech, but I did see this dirty, plainclothes cop (I KNOW FOR A FACT HE WAS PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT – in fact, he was a subject of Bill O’Reilly’s A Current Affair) take his flashlight and batter a black dude in the back of his dead, knocking him to the ground.

                    4. “But I know that there are some people who are so invested in tribal warfare that they will try to justify it on behalf of the “other” tribe, while objecting to it on behalf of “their” tribe.”

                      This beyond self unaware.
                      Jeff, you’re the biggest collectivist that posts here.
                      Also, I suggest you wipe the spittle off your screen.

              3. Byrd, the US Senator was an actual member of the KKK and a Democrat.

              4. Duke ran as a Democrat as well.

    4. It’s like we’re reliving the 1930’s all over again

      We do have people in black shirts smashing windows and beating up undesirables on the street.

      1. And plenty of weirdly tolerated anti-semitism.

    5. Here’s the difference: as far as I know, not one elected official in America proudly claims to be a Nazi, whereas many proudly and openly claim to be socialists.

      So it’s mostly a false equivalence, which of course is your biggest specialty and #1 stock in trade around here.

      1. Too bad Germans ruined the term “NAZI” for most conservatives.

        1. They were socialists dipshit. And the Nazis had huge numbers of admirers on the American left. In addition, when the Soviet Union was allied with the Nazis, the American left worked hand and hand with the fascists, who were their natural allies.

          You are the dumbest person on earth not named Tulpa. You literally know nothing. Now run along and get back in your hole.

          1. Just call your party the Aryan Supremacy Party, you little Roy Moore predator supporter.

            1. I am not a Democrat Shreek. Stop saying I am. They are not my party.

            2. Only one party’s longest serving senator in DC was a member of the KKK.

              Only one presidential candidate claimed said senator was a “mentor”.

        2. NAZI – National Socialist German Workers Party.

  2. “Are you fucking kidding me? Is that a fine enough point?” Jealous responded.

    So he’s not denying he’s a socialist then. Got it.

    1. Ben might even say you fucking got it.

    2. “I’m a venture capitalist, not a socialist. I have never referred to myself as a socialist nor would I govern as one,”

      Yeah, that’s a pretty vague statement. Not quite sure what he’s saying there.

      1. He’s not a venture capitalist, either. He works for Mitch Kapor’s venture fund, spending Mitch Kapor’s money.

        1. He’s a partner, which means he has ownership stake.

          1. A Socialist who works at a venture Capital place to further Lefty businesses.

            1. He’s not a socialist.

          2. He’s a partner because the firm can check off some boxes. He doesn’t do any venture capital work at the firm. It’s like the owners of the Yankees saying they are baseball players.

  3. Methinks the jackass protest too much.

  4. If Jealous wins, more Marylanders will be moving to Virginia to escape the tax hikes, until the dems hike taxes here too.

  5. “When you see conservatives like Hogan name-calling, you realize that they’re scared?that they’re, frankly, afraid of the change that all of our families need.”

    Like gulags, collective farms, state takeovers of private businesses, etc.

    1. They are just wreckers and exploiters afraid of losing their power.

  6. Well, let’s take a look at Ben Jealous’ position on the issues, as described on his campaign website:

    1) Increase teacher pay by 29%.
    2) Fund universal preschool by legalizing and taxing recreational marijuana use.
    3) Force the state to use all lottery revenues to fund education.
    4) Medicare for all.
    5) Free college tuition.
    6) “Invest in our cities”

    So how much will all of these proposals cost, and how will they be paid for? Maybe some enterprising journalist will ask Mr. Jealous that instead of just showing his ‘No fucking way I’m a socialist!’ soundbite.

    1. “Invest in our cities.”

      Finally, someone is willing to take a firm stance.

    2. Just look at his CV. He touts the fact that he’s a life-long civil rights activist and community organizer. Oh, yeah, and he’s a “businessman”, too. What’s his business experience? He’s a partner at a “socially conscious” venture capital fund – i.e. he has lots of experience spending other people’s money. Yeah, you’re a socialist, honey.

    3. It’s especially funny when you consider that almost the entire reason a completely unknown republican like Larry Hogan got elected in one of the bluest states in the Union was because his jackass predecessor jacked up taxes through the roof so much that ever many of the libs got sick over it.

      1. They haven’t been jacked down by Hogan as far as I can tell.

      2. Hogan signed a bill making community college free throughout the state of Maryland.
        Hogan supported a bill forcing companies to provide sick leave to all employees in Maryland.
        Hogan signed a bill mandating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and joined the United States Climate Alliance, a group of states agreeing to abide by the Paris Declaration limits.

        I think Hogan might be a socialist.

        1. He’s a Chris Christie Republican, I guess.

          1. In other words, a socialist.

            1. Socialism is good, and popular.

              1. Good at killing and popular until its not.

    4. So Mr. Jealous isn’t a Socialist, he’s a Social Welfareist.

      (Huh. Spellcheck says I invented a new word.)

  7. These days it doesn’t really matter to me whether politicians embrace the “socialist” label or not. The fundamental question is, “Will you #Resist the illegitimate Kremlin asset white nationalist who stole the 2016 election?” If the answer is “yes,” then I’ll support that candidate ? regardless of his or her or their views on the minimum wage or corporate tax rates.


  8. The real question is, how many votes were changed by #RussianMeddling?

    1. Either 0% or 100%, we just have to wait to see which side won to know.

    2. For the sake of our democracy, even one is too many.


  9. Or, maybe he’s just a Socialist and is afraid of the perception of the label?

    Truth and politics are rarely found together.

  10. It would be nice if people would find some new words to use. “Socialist” gets used for some rather different things. I certainly don’t want either full on socialism or a Euro-style welfare/nanny state system, but I think it’s worth distinguishing between the two. “Democratic socialist” sort of does it, but it’s possible for a democratically elected government to nationalize major industries, etc. and become socialist-socialist, so I don’t think that’s really it.

    If you are opposed to all kinds of socialism, then it’s fine, but most people are somewhere in the middle. Some amount of welfare-statism is going to happen. So let’s not give in to the lefty bait-and-switch talking point of “if you like the fire department, then you’re a socialist”.

    1. We need to be trained as people to slowly remove labels, because almost any label is too broadly constructed to give allow for a nuanced version of any person’s beliefs.

      So, I agree. Libertarian means a lot of different things as well. Liberal/Conservative can each mean multiple contradictory things. They are not useful for anything beyond the lowest level of discourse.

      1. So you don’t think words have meaning? What are “labels” but just words used to describe things? Can labels be too general? Sure. In fact no single word could ever adequately describe anyone’s set of beliefs. That, however, doesn’t make them useless or in no way descriptive of reality. Just because this guy isn’t like other socialists, doesn’t mean the term doesn’t accurately describe him to some degree.

        1. Minor correction. Words have meanings.
          What is actually meant needs context. Labels in lieu of arguments are risible, and there’s been far too much of that going on.
          You’re far from the worst offender, but this is a point near and dear to my heart. Communication needs all the help it can get.
          (Dear old mom may have been frightened by the logical positivists or linguist analysts while carrying me.)

          1. Sure, a word is not in itself an argument. But that doesn’t mean that labels are always invalid. Sometimes the shoe fits.

        2. So you don’t think words have meaning?

          Of course words have meaning. So what does the word “socialism” mean to you?

          If you go by Karl Marx’s definition, then there are very very few socialists in this country. Almost none really. Not Bernie Sanders, not Ocasio-Cortez, not Ben Jealous.

          But, if you go by the loosey-goosey definition of “anyone who doesn’t support doctrinaire libertarian economics” as a socialist, then pretty much everyone is a socialist.

        3. I think that the point is that people should be more thoughtful in how they label things and use words and be more descriptive. Of course using a noun is in some sense labeling a thing, but some are more effective than others.

      2. We need to be trained as people

        Should I be suspicious of the guy exhorting us not to label socialists, and begins his sentence thusly?

        I keed I keed…

        1. And we should also kill all dissenters. The science is settled.

          1. That’s a hoax, like vaccines. Dissenters should be sent to reeducation camps.

      3. Was it Kierkegaard or Dick Van Patten who said, “If you label me, you negate me” ?

      4. Or at least make some effort to make sure your audience understands words to mean the same thing as you do.

    2. The conflations has been encouraged by both many on the right who want to paint anyone and everything they don’t like as socialist, as well as many socialists who want to make themselves and their ideas seem more mainstream.

      I don’t want to be Sweden, but Sweden is a lot better than Venezuela and actually does have a capitalist market-based economy underlying their welfare state. Neither is ideal by any means, but there’s a hell of a difference.

      1. Sweden is a social welfare state. It is not strictly speaking a socialist state. And you are right that it is unfair to slander it as being the same as Venezuela. The problem is that leftists hold it up as an example of “socialism”. If they don’t want to be slandered as socialists, they should stop calling what they want socialism.

        1. I agree that the people who do that are idiots, but they’re generally not the ones who dislike being labeled socialists. The people who do that are usually either actual socialists who want to make their ideas seem more moderate and mainstream than they actually are or ignorant people who seriously think a stronger welfare state than the US constitutes socialism.

          It’s not Bernie or ACO objecting to the socialist label. And does anyone in Congress other than Bernie (as ACO isn’t there yet) self-identify as a socialist?

        2. Sweden’s current ruling party is the Social Democratic Party. It split from the Marxist Left (then Communist, then Left again) Party in 1917.

          ACO and the newly nominated and unopposed in the general Rashida Tlaib are members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

          The Sweden Social Democrats use a red rose as a symbol. The DSA uses a red rose as a symbol.

          Bernie, ACO, and Tlaib are social democrats.

      2. Yup.

        When those on the right use the term “socialist”, they tend to refer to places like Venezuela or the Soviet Union.
        When those on the left use the term “socialist”, they tend to refer to places like Norway or Sweden.

        They are both right, and both wrong, because both tribes have a vested interest in keeping the definition vague, so as to either scare or entice people away from or towards their point of view.

    3. “Democratic socialist” sort of does it, but it’s possible for a democratically elected government to nationalize major industries,

      The education industry is practically nationalized already.

    4. I generally differentiate between “socialist” and “Socialist” the same as between “libertarian” and “Libertarian”. Look at the root word – socialism/society, communism/community, they’re collectivists putting the interests of the “common good” (as they and they alone define it, natch) over the interests of the individual. There’s no “balancing” in you didn’t build that and it takes a village, they’re strictly Hobbesian in their view that everything you have is thanks to the benevolence of the state and therefore the state is justified in taking everything you have if they think it’s required. Just look at any of them (including Trump) referring to “our” money and “our” jobs and “our” companies and how much wealth “we” have. To the extent that you use social resources to create money and jobs and so on, sure, you have a duty to pay your fair share – but a fair share is, by definition, an agreed-upon amount and “everything” is not a fair share. It’s not “ours” and “we”, it’s only a portion and the size of that portion is a matter of discussion and debate and mutual agreement.

      1. By your definition any form of nationalism is socialism. And that is just not true. Trump is a nationalist. He is not a socialist. Saying “jobs in this country belong to the nation and it is the government’s duty to protect them” is not the same as saying they belong to the government. It just isn’t.

        If you don’t like Trump’s nationalism, fine. But don’t call it socialism because it is not. To do so renders the term socialism to be meaningless and a catch all for anything you don’t like.

        1. Yeah, jerryskids! Don’t do that!

          Socialism is just a catchall for things John doesn’t like.

          1. That isn’t even a sensible response. Why don’t you go back to misreading the DMCA or something

  11. At least somebody is rejecting the label.


    According to the AP, they were training the kids to do school shootings. Wow.

    1. And here I thought our gun-centric culture already naturally trained everyone to be a school shooter.

      1. More examples of the religion of peace.

        1. “Kill them all, let God sort them out” is not a belief restricted to the ‘religion of peace.’
          Or more canonically correct, “Think not that I come bringing peace. I bring not peace but the sword.”

          1. Get back to me when the Methodists start training kids to blow themselves up and commit school shootings.

            1. The Catholics trained boys to blow.. Oh nevermind.

              1. …up half of Belfast?

                1. The IRA were Marxists dipshit.


                  Yes Marxists are murderous fucks as bad as Islamists. We know that.

                  1. Did you even read that?

                    The OIRA was Marxist. It signed a cease fire in 1972.

                    The PIRA was not Marxist. It bombed and shot people until 1997.

                    They were also Catholic.

                    1. The PIRA was Marxist as well

                      As Diarmaid Mac Aonghusa notes, however, while the IRA’s outlook in Ireland and Northern Ireland may have been vaguely socialist, they downplayed this in their fundraising and propaganda efforts in the United States. Socialism would not have played well with Irish-Americans.

                      After the 1970 split, the Marxist wing became known as the “Official IRA” (because they retained control of the headquarters on Gardiner Place in Dublin, the newspaper, etc.). It is well known that the Officials were supported for many years by the Soviet Union.

                      In later years, the Provisional IRA also received arms and other materiel (especially the famous Semtex explosive) from East Bloc countries, presumably with Soviet approval. East Bloc support was motivated less by ideological sympathy than by the desire simply to cause trouble for the United Kingdom.

                      Other terrorist groups (such as the Irish National Liberation Army/Irish Republican Socialist Party) also claimed to be Marxist but I suspect that few of their members could explain the labor theory of value if pressed.


                      God you are stupid.

                    2. Do you agree with this source? Because it really teaches me to follow the fucking links.

                      The literal first sentence in your source:

                      The Provisional IRA was not Marxist (never mind Maoist) at all.

                      The literal first sentence explicitly states exactly the opposite of what you’re trying to prove, and you cite it as support?

                      And you call someone else stupid?

              2. Is that why the age of consent is still 12 in Mexico?

                1. So kids can travel to the US without parental consent?

              3. When I was an altar boy, the parish priest got de-frocked for having affairs with married women. After leaving the priesthood, he became a real-estate agent. Selling you a place in the here-and-now rather than the afterlife, not an unrelated business to be in. But that’s about the time I started questioning whether or not the Church and religion in general was a scam and decided it was.

    2. Ramzi, however, told CNN that she never claimed Wahhaj sought to perform an exorcism, a word most often associated with Christianity. Instead, Ramzi said, she told police Wahhaj wanted to perform ruqya on the boy.
      While ruqya is generally described as an Islamic version of exorcism — though the targets are jinn, or spirits, rather than Satan — Ramzi described Wahhaj’s intentions as an attempt to cast out Abdul-Ghani’s illness via prayer.
      “It’s not an exorcism,” she told CNN. “That was a translation issue in the court. He just wanted to pray for Abdul-Ghani to get better”

      that whole section just screams “Don’t worry! At least they aren’t crazy Christians, phew!”

      OT: I like the pop-up I got on the CNN site… “do you want the news to be “summarized” every morning?” (scare quotes mine) unfortunately, there was no “lol, nice try” option so I settled for “no thanks”

  13. But… “Ben Jealous” really? That’s like a porno name for a Cuckold fetish site…

  14. “Jealous has been endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), arguably the most well-known democratic socialist in the country. But he doesn’t like the s-word himself, claiming instead to be a “venture capitalist.”

    Jealous is much a “venture capitalist” as is Maudro.

    1. Yeah, and Buffett, Gates, Soros, Bezos, et al are also “socialist” because they don’t vote tor the Trump White Trash GOP.


        The Berkely Police put you and the Revs and Happy Chandler’s mug shots out. Do you all get trained on having the same vacant look in your eyes or is having it required for membership?

        1. Look, it is a legit problem for any thinking person. The GOP is full-on bigoted White Trash Trumpism today.

          No one outside the far left wants a Bernie Sanders. There is a huge opening in the center.

          1. No, being a part of a fascist mob isn’t a problem for thinking people. It is just a problem for their victims and retards like you who are part of the fascist mob.

          2. And yes, no one outside the left wants Socialism. That is why Trump is President and will be re-elected.

        2. Traffic was a bitch. I live two blocks from MLK, which was shut down for the protest and the traffic all ended up on my street to get around it. But, I took my boy to see a play about pirates at the park. The helicopters were annoying.

          1. They have your mugshot. Try not being a fascist next time.

            1. Never had contact with BPD. The University of California PD busted us for playing frisbee in Memorial Stadium. They just sent us packing.

              1. Your picture is right there.

        3. Jason Wallach is one of the perps.

          According to the story, he is 41. WOW. That is a hard 41.

          1. I was a little surprised how haggard most of them looked. I figured most people would grow up a bit before they looked like that. But I guess “most people” still leaves enough.

    2. Maybe he’s a denture capitalist taking a bite out of the profiteers?

  15. Isn’t guilt by association all the rage these days? If a social like Sanders endorsed him, then he would be a socialist by that standard?

  16. A socialist wouldn’t be named Jealous. He’d be named Envious. I rest my case.

  17. >>>Are you fucking kidding me?

    Objection non-responsive.

  18. “I’m a venture capitalist, not a socialist.”

    That’s a relief.

  19. Isn’t it what Martin Luther King called Martin Luther King?

    “I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic? [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive? but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.” ? Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952.

    “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” ? Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.

    “The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” ?Speech to SCLC Board, March 30, 1967.

    “There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” ? Speech to his staff, 1966.

    1. MLK was a socialist. While his ideas about racial equality were fine, you wouldn’t want to adopt any of MLK’s ideas about economics.

      Bernie Sanders is a socialist. He endorsed this guy. That is good reason to think this guy is a socialist as well. If he is not, he should disavow Sanders’ endorsement and explain why he isn’t a socialist. He owes more of an answer than “how dare you”.

      1. Exactly John. A Libertarian politician would publicly reject an endorsement by a Socialist.

        Economically Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Socialism.

      2. Yeah, Goldwater was so concerned about King, that President JFK sicced his brother Attorney General RFK and the FBI on him. Damn Republicans.

        1. Right, Hoover answered to JFK. That’s good history!

          1. Right, Hoover answered to JFK.

            Well, as the head of the FBI, yeah he did.

            You might want to learn some history yourself, dummy.

  20. From a 2009 Newsweek article entitled We Are All Socialists Now:

    As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.

    All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not?or even whether many people have thought much about it or not?the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone?a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone?a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

    Several years ago, Obama’s allies were calling him a socialist.

    1. The most popular elected official in the Democratic Party is a self avowed socialist. But somehow calling the Democratic Party socialist is some kind of slur or something.

      1. Obama is a capitalist and had the support of our best high profile capitalists.

        1. Bernie is much more popular than Obama.

          1. He’s not in the Democratic Party.

            1. He nearly got nominated for President from the Democratic party. And he is the most popular elected official among actual Democrats. So, I don’t see how him calling himself an “independent” makes the Democrats who like him and voted for him to win their parties nomination any less socialist.

        2. Obama is a Socialist. ObamaCare is government control of the means of production- Health insurance.

        3. Businesses that seek the favor of the state to gain an advantage backed by force are not capitalists simply by virtue of owning a capital good.

          The US is not very capitalist. There are all sorts of capitalists trying to make it in our non-capitalist system… but they often get stamped out by the non-capitalist firms who have bought govt guns to run their competition out of town.

          So no… he was not supported by capitalists.

      2. The most popular elected official in the Democratic Party is a self avowed socialist.

        Who is that?

        1. Bernie Sanders. The guy who almost beat Hillary to win the nomination. But, hey if you want to say

          The most popular elected official in America among Democratic Voters to be more precise, I am fine with that.

          1. He’s virtually a member, just not officially.

    2. Yeah, right after the Bushpigs took ownership of the eight largest US banks for $700 billion in TARP.

      THAT was actually socialist (government ownership of the means of production)

      1. Obama voted for Tarp when he was in the Senate. He supported TARP from day one. Was Obama a Bushpig?

        1. You wont get an answer because Buttplugger was hoping everyone forgot that US Senator Barack Obama voted for TARP.

          Obama also voted for these things-
          In 2007, Obama voted in favor of restoring habeas corpus to detainees in American custody (S. Amendment 2022)
          He voted against a successful bill in 2007 which funded the Iraq War without including a timetable for withdrawal (H.R. 2206)
          In 2007, he voted against another successful bill which gave $120 billion in funding for the Iraq War (vote 181), but voted for two different votes on a separate failed bill (HR 1591), which appropriated similar amounts for the Iraq War but included timetables for American troop withdrawals
          Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, (S. 3930) which granted legal immunity for CIA officials involved in acts of torture, outlawed certain acts of torture by U.S. agents, and barred detainees labeled enemy combatants from protesting their incarceration. He voted in favor of an amended version of this bill (S. Amdt. 5095), which included Congressional oversight of some CIA programs
          In 2005, Obama voted against a House resolution to reallocate $36 million to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (HR 1268 # 93)

  21. Socialists are trying to claim generally popular policies, such as minimum wage increases that pass even in red states when put to a vote, as their own.

    Your average person looks at Ben Jealous and his policies and sees something reasonable. When he gets called socialist by his opponents, people look at socialism and think it’s not as bad as everybody says!

    1. Exactly! That’s how this shit works. When Hillary said shit like, “Imagine a person like Trump being president..” people would imagine Trump being president. People who are bad at salesmanship and persuasion don’t seem to get this.

    2. Free beers, free blowjobs, and free ponies is always a popular policy. It’s just not a realistic policy.

    3. “”Socialists are trying to claim generally popular policies,

      Universal health care is only popular until they start taking about paying for it. A few states have passed it in some level of Congress, but then it stalls when they have to figure out how to pay. The lower house in NYS passed it, but once they figured out it would cost as much as the entire current NYS budget, no one wants to pass the taxes needed.

      1. They couldn’t even get it to work in California or Vermont.

      2. But, when it is labelled socialism, it does more to bring up socialism than knock down single payer.

        Single payer, under current federal law, is hard to impossible to institute on a state level. Federal law enshrines employer health care.

  22. Socialism doesn’t mean anything anymore.

    In the heady days of the 20th century, it meant social ownership of the means of production. The most excited people picked that up and ran with it, creating some of the most human tragedies in history, along with basket case countries that could barely survive (and many didn’t), much less thrive.

    Obviously, socialists have to distance themselves from that, so, today, socialism means “capitalism + welfare state”, and everyone claims they want Norway. And, with that, socialists conceded the argument about which economic model actually works. All that’s left to haggle over is welfare spending, fueled by taxes from capitalism.

    They had to destroy socialism to save it.

    1. But they seem to hate capitalism, so what’s left is the welfare state.

      1. And for all their bitching about capitalism and the 1%, who do they want to pay for everything again?

        They might as well come out and say that the 1% are a feature, not a bug.

        1. How many of them order from Amazon, own an apple phone, or support other 1%ers with their dollars.

        2. When I hear liberal friends complain about all the expensive condos going up in NYC, I reply that it is more tax money and trying to solve the homeless problem isn’t cheap.

      2. Yeah, the problem is that there are so many anti-capitalists who don’t seem to get that you can’t have anything like the welfare state they want without thriving capitalism. Which also limits how much welfare state you can have.

  23. Last time I checked, venture capitalists didn’t acquire their capital through force.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.