64 percent say Democratic Party supports socialism, says poll

[brooklynite]

Source: The Hill

Nearly two thirds of registered voters believe that the Democratic Party supports socialism, according to a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill.

Sixty-four percent of respondents said that they believe the Democratic Party backs such an economic system, while 36 percent believe the party is opposed to socialism, the poll found.

The finding comes amid an ongoing debate among Democrats over whether the party should throw its support behind sweeping policy proposals, like a single-payer healthcare system or raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

President Trump in his State of the Union address earlier this week warned of a creeping socialism in the United States in what appeared to be a preview of an attack line he could use in his reelection campaign.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/431641-64-percent-say-democratic-party-supports-socialism-says-poll

[yaesu]

1. If people really understood what socialism was the support would be over 90%. nt

[brooklynite]

4. No. they wouldn't, unless you're joining the effort to redefine the word.

[JonLP24]

9. The Republican Russian traitors are the ones watering down that term to essentially meaningless

They called AOC paying a living wage to entry level staff "socialism and communism on display". They are OK with gutting the safety net, busting the unions and corporations paying workers less despite getting massive tax breaks. Anything less than that is socialism.

[yaesu]

24. So you don't agree that public roads, public utilities, public schools, police, fire services

the US military, ect, ect, ect isn't socialism? I'm sure Fox news would disagree but can't believe ANY progressive would.

[FBaggins]

33. The double negative may have confused what you intended to say.

But no... those are not examples of socialism.

[EX500rider]

59. No, it isn't, those are just govt services as supplied by all govt's.

Socialism is govt owning the means of production and it never works out well. Unless everyone being equally poor is considered a good outcome.

[Oak2004]

80. No, it means the workers controlling the means of production

and while this has been interpreted to mean "the government" by some socialists, others of us look to cooperatives, union representation on boards of directors, and other means to shift the balance of power from those who own to those who produce.

There are of course times when government ownership is appropriate, and we do have such arrangements today even under capitalism. For example, my city owns the local power company. Far from being inefficient, municipalities that own their own utility providers have significantly lower utility costs. However, that my city owns the electric company does not empower the electrical workers, because government ownership has proven to be unsuccessful as an intermediate step towards worker self-management. This is one reason why many contemporary socialists see nationalization of industry as a failed tactic.

[PETRUS]

81. Thank you.

Government ownership is/was just one idea about how to achieve worker control. Like you said, most contemporary leftists (at least those with whom I have some familiarity) are more interested in co-ops and co-determination than state ownership. That said, I agree that there may be certain cases where government ownership is viable (and preferable to private, for profit enterprise). One lesson from the 20th century that seems obvious to me is that ownership by an autocratic/authoritarian government is not at all a path to worker control. Of course, an autocratic/authoritarian government is objectionable (to me, anyway) whether or not it owns industry.

I embrace an even broader definition of socialism. Karl Polanyi wrote "Socialism is, essentially, the tendency inherent in an industrial civilization to transcend the self-regulating market by consciously subordinating it to a democratic society." (That's one of the most succinct explanations I have encountered.) There isn't a purely capitalist/market society anywhere in the world - it "never works out well," to quote the fellow upthread. All of the so-called capitalist countries are actually mixed economies. Certain kinds of regulation and public spending are appropriately understood as expressions of socialism. In theory, we could rely on markets to deliver K-12 education, fire service, and set the wage floor (to list a few examples), but people prefer to "transcend the self-regulating market by consciously subordinating it to a democratic society" in those cases. It's hard not to notice that the the right wing describes certain measures as "socialism" when people are trying to get them enacted, and then turns around and says it's not socialism when they are enacted and people are satisfied with the results.

[Aussie105]

85. Socialism

So what is your definition?

Socialism is just a term that means the government will look after you. Educational opportunities, healthcare, safety net as far as income goes, caring for the elderly and the frail.
Any idea that it restricts people from doing the best for themselves is just not part of the word. Or that some Big Brother government takes over private industry.

What is your definition?

Since when does America consider socialism as one step closer to totalitarian Communism?

[brooklynite]

87. No, it is NOT "just a term that means the government will look after you"

socialism (noun)
so·​cial·​ism | ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

If only we had a way to look up the agreed-upon definitions of words, maybe in book form.....

[IronLionZion]

6. It involves a lot of brutal human rights abuses

from what I see from RW memes online about it. Seems legit. We didn't have many mass shootings back in the day before we got Social Security and Medicare.

[ck4829]

22. +1

[IronLionZion]

31. Soon after we got Social Security, millions of Americans died in WWII

Soon after we got Medicare, hundreds of thousands of Americans died in Vietnam.

It's not a coincidence. Socialism kills!

[oldsoftie]

39. No, they wouldnt. The better its explained the LESS support it would get.

But when its termed as only the "rich" paying more, a LOT of people will support it. Once they understand THEY also have to pay more, support drops.

[BeyondGeography]

54. Yeah, eliminating private property in this country would be a huge hit

[DeminPennswoods]

2. As do the vast majority of Americans,

but they don't realize social security, unemployment insurance, medicare, medicaid, VA, the military are all socialist programs.

[brooklynite]

5. For the millionth time, no they are not

They are progressive, they are SOCIAL but they are not SOCIALIST, because they have nothing to do with the Government controlling the means of production.

[IronLionZion]

10. What's the means of production for social security?

[brooklynite]

12. Tax revenue from people primarily working in a capitalist economy.

[IronLionZion]

16. That's true for every government program. Then nothing is socialist

as long as the tax revenue comes from people working in a capitalist economy. Not even Northern European governments control the means of production.

[brooklynite]

25. Hence the meaning of "SOCIALIST" as.....

.....a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

If you want a term for supportive public programs, you have:

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY: Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist economy.

And then you can become a Social Democrat.

You WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REDEFINE "SOCIALISM" in the minds of the public.

[IronLionZion]

29. Is there something wrong with our party?

Why do smart Democratic politicians embrace the word Democratic Socialism instead of Social Democrat? The latter is a winner.

[onit2day]

34. But who wrote these definitions. There is the workable use and the dictionary use

But like Bernie did on TV he didn't try to define the term, he defined it's programs like single payer and the (Green) New Deal like FDR did. Republicans can demonize the term but not it's programs which the majority of Americans support. Recall how JFK defended the term 'Liberal' by defining the programs liberals stood for. "If by Liberal they mean...." is how it began. so WE DON'T HAVE TO BUT WE CAN EASILY REDEFINE SOCIALISM IN THE MINDS OF THE PUBLIC by pointing to its programs when ever the term comes up. Try it and you'll see. "If by socialism you mean free libraries, police and fire departments then I am a socialist. Or you mean free higher ed., prison reform, highways and infrastructure upkeep. SS, Medicare, then I am a socialist", etc." You'll see 88% of Americans are 'socialists' also. Aren't you?

[rwsanders]

74. Thanks.

Because without that distinction, it would make my head hurt to come up with a difference between socialism and communism.
I think folks here, like those on the right, like lumping the 2 together so progressive, socialist programs never get fair, rational consideration.

[pangaia]

37. I think you're wasting your breath. It boggles the mind, does it not..

Mr_lebowski here made a very good post..
I will take the liberty of quoting it here...

"There's also a difference between small 's' socialism, i.e. 'roughly socialistic aspects of running the country' (i.e. Social Security, EPA, FDA, Medicare, etc) vs. capital 'S' Socialism, which is the dictionary definition, where the State actually controls all means of production.

Don't blame me for the confusion, it's the Right that's been (wrongly) calling every Government action/program (the ones they DON'T like, anyway) that benefits society collectively 'Socialism' for a hundred freaking years "

[Javaman]

45. Please see my post #36. nt

[pangaia]

64. Thanks. I just read it.

Learned something

But don;t you think a lot of people are using the term for things that are more......'socially oriented," if I can make up that term? Meant to help individuals and society as a whole...

medicare, social security,.. aren't 'owned ' by the gov
If there was a basic income... that wouldn;t be owned by the gov...
I mean food safety, ATC, fire departments.. etc, etc.. I'm sure you get my drift..
Am I wrong about all that?

[Javaman]

70. I think, personally, when people are polled and want "socialism" they are thinking more along...

...the lines of "democratic socialism".

Most people really don't have a clue regarding what actual socialism is; but when presented with the concept that many facets of our society are attuned to a socialistic nature and they see those things as good, they then associate it, incorrectly, with true socialism.

I believe democratic socialism is best reflected in the various programs promoted and put into action by FDR and on a minor scale; LBJ. I say minor for LBJ because aside from medicare and medicaid (which were absolutely ground breaking), the other parts of his "great society" were grossly underfunded and over time, (heartbreakingly so) died on the vine or were slowly eroded by the republicans.

[OilemFirchen]

66. Actually, a specific buy-in from workers and employers.

One only receives Social Security if one pays for Social Security. And the amount one receives is dependent on the amount they contribute. Virtually the opposite of socialism.

Curiously, your original interlocutor mentioned three examples of the same - Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance.

[DeminPennswoods]

15. That is a distinction without a difference

nt

[Javaman]

36. you are mistaking communism for socialism...

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

In the communist society that Marx described, the government has supreme authority through its total control of land and means of production. Because the government distributes land and property among the people, communism sets a standard of equality -- both economically and socially -- among its followers.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/communism1.htm

[Bradical79]

50. That's not what socialism is

The government controlling the means of production is not "socialism". It's an oversimplification of a pretty broad term.

[EX500rider]

60. Actually it is the exact definition of Socialism. Not to be confused with social welfare programs.

[Javaman]

71. actually no, please see my post at #36. nt

[EX500rider]

73. I go with the dictionary:

so·cial·ism
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[Javaman]

78. and how does that differ from what I posted?

it says nothing about socialism having the government control the means of production as was inferred by another poster.

[IronLionZion]

3. The party that brought us Social Security and Medicare

should bring Medicare to all of us. Why do only our elderly get to have socialism? It's the best deal for employers so it's the pro-business plan if you think about it like that.

For many folks, the tax increase will be less than premiums, deductibles, copays, etc. for insurance.

[lagomorph777]

17. The elderly get to benefit from socialism, and so do the billionaires.

The billionaires have privatized their profits and socialized their costs.
The rest of us are stuck with trickle-down capitalism.

[IronLionZion]

20. Why do we have to give tax funded bailouts and no bid contracts, subsidies, tax credits

and other stuff to help encourage businesses to succeed in our capitalist free market economy?

[lagomorph777]

27. "our capitalist free market economy" is not actually that. That's a fairy tale.

And then there are roads, public education, etc all of which enable "capitalist" businesses to function.

[SpankMe]

7. The right-wing propaganda machine is working. n/t

[elleng]

56. Yes it is, as it usually does.

[Devil Child]

8. Good news.

Fifty-six percent of registered voters between the ages of 18 and 24 favored a “mostly socialist” economic model, while 48 percent of voters between the ages of 25 and 34 said the same.

Even better news.

[GatoGordo]

11. Did they define what Socialism was?

[brooklynite]

14. I think most people know what it means...although apparently not some people here

[GatoGordo]

26. I would disagree

Most people are woefully uninformed and many more are only too happy to "follow the herd".

Tell 100 people that Socialism will provide "free ______" and you'll have a stampede of 90 people.

Marketing

[Javaman]

38. read my response up thread to your assurtion.

I don't think you know what socialism means.

[oldsoftie]

44. Its amazing; a dictionary is easily pulled up on the computer.

And the definition is just what you stated earlier.

[TeamPooka]

13. Fifty-six percent of registered voters between the ages of 18 and 24 favored a "mostly socialist"

Fifty-six percent of registered voters between the ages of 18 and 24 favored a “mostly socialist” economic model, while 48 percent of voters between the ages of 25 and 34 said the same.

they buried the real lead...

[lagomorph777]

19. Voters see our side as socialist, and they are liking what they see.

ME TOO!

[Devil Child]

21. +1 n/t

[JonLP24]

23. +1

Someone actually called The Hill a "Socialist blog" when I posted a poll showing wide support for 70% tax increase after the first $10 million.

Link to tweet

[oldsoftie]

42. And the 70% rate on +10M STILL wont raise an amount of money needed to fund ANY new programs

mentioned in the "green new deal".
Maybe 60-70B a yr. Not even enough to balance the current budget.

[JonLP24]

47. How can we afford tax breaks for the wealthy?

We could cut the corporate welfare reduce defense spending I think many of the programs will pay for itself with jobs and multiplier effects from that.

82% of registered voters support a Green New Deal. Another proposal with wide support from the public.

[Hulk]

18. If the other 36% would pull their heads out of the behinds and realize what we are talking about...

I'm afraid the ignorant and misinformed tie "socialism" to Venezuela's turmoil and the putin's Russia. Communism is something else. Read up. Why do we have to be such a nation of morons to cope with!?!?

[onit2day]

28. Sounds like they don't even know what socialism is.Are they against SS or Medicare

orhighways or libraries, fire & police depts,. We always had high tax rates over $10 million until Reagan. Better if asked "Do you know we already live in a Social Democracy or a Democratic Socialist Republic?" Because we do. All but 2 of of the world's countries have healthcare for all but only the media here thinks it's controversial. We can tell when the money party starts dominating the middle class and the working poor.
"...an ongoing debate among Democrats over whether the party should throw its support behind sweeping policy proposals, like a single-payer healthcare system or raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans..." The debate is on how to implement it not on whether we should. The Hill presents us with more corporate propaganda. A huge majority support raising taxes on the wealthy and single payer Medicare for all and sense we are the party of the people it will happen but you act like we are not the government or the voters don't decide these things. That's why it's called "Democratic"Socialism and not just socialism.

[TheRealNorth]

30. Scaring the populace of the red boogeyman

Makes a fascist take-over much easier. See:

Italy 1922
Germany 1933
Spain 1936
Iran 1953

-among others

[Renew Deal]

32. Both parties support socialism

Just to different degrees

[Raven123]

35. The Dems need to define socialism. The GOP has successfully equated Democrats and socialists

When asked if you are a socialist, make the questioner be specific. Media is asking Dem 2020 candidates that very question, and responses need to be precise. Don’t give anyone the chance to be boxed into the GOP definition. Ask the questioner for an example of socialism.

[GatoGordo]

41. THIS

The Republicans are doing a better job of defining it (in a negative way) and laying it around our necks like an anchor. We need to define it. Accentuate the positives (universal, comprehensive healthcare) while disavowing the negatives.

The Democratic Party needs to define what Socialism is to them.

[oldsoftie]

43. So you're going to change the definition of Socialism thats in every dictionary?

Because if not, we're gonna have a tough time.

[Bradical79]

49. The dictionary defenition is very broad

and it includes the type of social Democracy that many Democrats (and European countries) support.

[Blackjackdavey]

55. This is easy

Thanksgiving dinner at my mom's.

Socialism: Everyone brings a dish to pass. Everyone agrees to make sure everyone has enough turkey before anyone else gets seconds.

Communism: Mom makes everyone help her cook then gives us what she thinks is a fair share then keeps the rest for herself.

Capitalism: Everyone brings a dish. Mom reimburses everyone for the cost plus a little more for the trouble. Then Mom charges us 8 times the cost by the plate.

[GatoGordo]

62. Better

Thanksgiving day at my mom's

Socialism: Everyone brings a dish to pass. Everyone gets the same portion of adequate food. Nobody gets enough to get full and nobody gets to decide what they get served. Mom decides. You can't be trusted to make that decision.

Communism: Everyone is forced to bring a dish. Mother now owns all the food, the bowls, the spoons and your labor. You will eat what you get served and you will offer accolades and platitudes to Mother. You should be grateful Mom doesn't chain you up in the cellar.

Capitalism: Everyone brings a dish to pass. You take what you want, leave what you don't. Some get drunk. Some want to air old grievances. Some are greedy and selfish, but most aren't. Some go home early. Some stay too long. But you aren't forced to come, nor stay.

[riverine]

76. Excellent! Remember when Bernie said he likes bread lines because everyone gets the same?

We mostly want capitalism and choice.

[Blackjackdavey]

79. This is silly

You are (intentionally) conflating communism and socialism and pretending capitalism is a social life rather than an economic system. Furthermore, dictionaries aren't instruction manuals and we get to make our own system -- preferably one that is uniquely American. Socialism is simply a system by which everyone gets enough before anyone else gets more so yes, taxes paid by those with means go into a system that provides enough to survive to those without means. Such a system does not preclude free enterprise nor should it. In fact, such a system would support the expansion of free enterprise because it would generate a basic income for people who will spend the money locally rather than on the French Riviera. That is before we even get into reducing the social cost associated with inaccessible preventative medicine, homelessness and childhood poverty and carbon based economies. We can call it something else if you are truly hung up on the word but getting back to our Thanksgiving analogy, it really seems as though the resistance to an American socialist system has much more to do with the fact that many people are, shall we say, "picky" about who they want to invite over for Thanksgiving dinner.

[elleng]

57. YES

[eppur_se_muova]

46. You say that like it's a bad thing ... nt

[Linda Ed]

48. Socialism

The United States, for instance, is usually considered a prime example of a capitalist country. Sweden is often considered a strong example of a socialist society.

Here you can see which countries are socialist and the healthcare for all:
https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/sweden/

Look under the country profiles..that is why we need healthcare for all

[still_one]

51. Biden has waited until most if not all the prospective candidates have announced. When he announces

and he will, the attention will focus on him, and that perception will change

[Fiendish Thingy]

52. This smells of a push by the PTB to neutralize AOC, Bernie, even Warren and Kamala

To maintain the status quo and convince the Dems to run a lukewarm, "centrist" like Biden rather than a candidate who will make significant reforms and changes, and repair the damage done by Trump.

[underpants]

53. Well the right got on the "trust" issue a few years before 2016

I guess they are going with this now.

[MountCleaners]

58. White Americans are so xenophobic that...

...they don't realize that what Democrats want is pretty much the norm for all other industrialized nations.

[JHB]

61. With all conservative media calling everything Democrats do 'socialism'...

...and counting Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as radical socialists -- and mainstream media generally bending towards that spin to avoid "liberal media bias" accusations -- numbers like that aren't unexpected. A shitpile, but not unexpected.

[moonseller66]

63. Uh, precedent has been set!

So tired of hearing we have to take things slow because radical change is no good. Yep!
However, we've already seen RADICAL change with the yahoo in charge and his executive rulings! ANd if he's going to use them, so can the next president.

In 2020, with a Democratic President, Democratic Senate and House there's no stopping what a president can do with executive orders.
Medicare for all? Yep!
No outsourcing of jobs? Yep!
Higher taxes on the wealthy? Yep!
Fixed infrastructure? Yep!
Free college? Yep!
And more!

A chicken in every pot? Probably not.

But if the 2020 Democratic President uses the same executive privilege the current asshole did and does, it could become VERY interesting for Americans and trying for corporations!

An Executive Order moving the SCOTUS to antarctica for the winter to convene and issue decisions? Or replacing certain ones for National Security Reasons...to protect them?
Lawyers practicing before the court in 20 degree weather?
Citizens United to be ignored? The law seems not to pertain to Trump and the Republicans.

All stupid but in the purview of the current dipshit, also.
It might be turn-about fair play in 2020.

Just a thought.

[Maxheader]

65. Country couldn't exist without it...

[Progressive Jones]

69. This meme is a fucking lie, and you know it. Grow up. nt

[Polybius]

72. What a disgusting lie of a meme

It's nothing but a brutal attack on an amazing Senator.

[EarthFirst]

68. They also don't understand entitlements; marginal tax rates; single-payer; collective bargaining etc

Yet they know without a shadow of a doubt that each of these are no good.

They couldn’t explain to you what any of them are; much less how they work; they just know.

Many of them benefit from several of these; yet gnash their teeth and claw their eyeballs over “that guy!” getting his...

They’re a vile; selfish; disgusting lot of ignorant mules peddling disinformation.

[The Liberal Lion]

75. If only democrats were as socialist as the boogie persons on the right would have us believe.

[David__77]

77. I believe it's the home of most self-identified socialists in this country.

It’s a big tent that includes some socialists.

[UpInArms]

82. If people don't like socialism

They need to quit driving on our roads, flying in commercial airplanes and drinking clean water

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

83. HOW BOUT A POLL to determine how many know the definition of the word "socialism" - I'm

guessing 36%.

Tired of this nonsense. We used to have honest differences of opinion. Then it became diffence of fact. Now its difference of what words MEAN. "Coup" is another one being used by people who have no idea what the word really means.

[GulfCoast66]

84. Been watching this thread and had decided not to respond. But oh well.

Not one exam any good democrat has mentioned here as examples of socialism is actually socialism.

And it proves how successful the right has been when even those on the left confuse social democracy with Socialism, Democratic or otherwise.

Socialism has one accepted meaning worldwide: the state(common) ownership of the means of production. And it does not work.

Social Security, Medicare, strong union rights, living wage, roads and infrastructure, universal healthcare and so on and so on are not socialism.

Not a single western European country claims to be socialist. Because they aren’t. They are prosperous capitalistic country’s with strong social democratic policies.

If our goal is to change society’s definition of socialism, then by all means keep calling things that are not actually socialism, socialism.

If our goal is to win elections, then we need to call bullshit when our goals are called socialism and explain what they really are. The list I posted above most Americans support. We are crazy to call that socialism. Because it is not!

It pisses me off when conservatives purposely try to confound the word social with socialism. It saddens me when those on the left do the same.

[brooklynite]

88. "Social Democratic"

What a clever way to define the term that people here are arguing about...

[ck4829]

89. We got to be pragmatic though. That's how Republicans get elected, by calling everything "socialism"

Surviving a school shooting is not socialism. But that's what Republicans say.

Buying things before a potential disaster is not socialism. But that's what Republicans say.

GLBTQ rights are not socialism. But that's what Republicans say.

Feminism is not socialism. But that's what Republicans say.

And what does "not work" mean?

Does socialism not work in a similar way that billionaires with affluenza don't work or the "world's greatest healthcare system" with uninsured Americans dying of preventable diseases not working?

[Aussie105]

86. Probably time

for people to stop discussing the definitions of terms, and ask voters a few simple questions:

Are you in favor of an improved standard of living, like other countries, that includes:

1. Affordable health care and medicines?
2. Affordable education?
3. An income safety net for the unemployed, elderly and injured workers?
4. Infrastructure repairs and upgrades?

etc

Then slap down any criticisms regarding 'It's socialism! It's Communism! It's not affordable! They want to take away your rights, your guns, your dignity!' etc.

[ck4829]

90. Because in 10 years, not wanting to throw a virgin into a volcano to appease the Job Creators...

will become "socialism".

I mean good God, not wanting to get shot in school is already "socialism" today.

Where will it end?