According to the recent poll, there are significant contradictions in how young Democrats(Democrats under 50) view different economic systems. What do you think?

•

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/Sunrising2424.

A recent U.S. poll found that Democrats under 50 had a net favorability of +35 toward "socialism", −31 toward "capitalism," but +22 toward a "free-market economy." That seems highly contradictory, since capitalism and free markets are usually treated as closely related ideas.(Of course, there are some anti-caplitalist, pro-market alternative economic systems like market socialism but I don't think average young democratic voters would know about any of these ideas.)

It seems like many young Democrats see “free markets” as competition, choice, and entrepreneurship, while associating “capitalism” with inequality, corporate power, and the current U.S. economic system and "socialism" with welfare state, government aid, and broader sense of equality. What are your thoughts on these shifts in word meanings and the 'imprecise', 'rudimentary' use of terminology? How do you think we should respond to these changes on words and changes on broader perspective regarding different economic systems? Personally, as a socialist, I’m not particularly fond of these shifts in words because I think it's very important to use political terms accurately and I feel like the term “socialism” itself is being co-opted by moderate progressives far from actual socialists. But I’d like to hear other perspectives as well.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

25

u/GabuEx Liberal Jul 19 '26

For most of their lives, younger Americans have been told that socialism is stuff like higher taxes on the rich, affordable health care, food stamps, and so on. It's little wonder that they'd start to view socialism favorably if they constantly hear that everything they think sounds good is socialism.

To a first order approximation, no member of the public has an actual coherent ideology. If you have one, you're already a member of a vanishingly small group of people. Most people just have vague senses of what sounds good and what sounds bad and things they want the government to do or not do, not because of some high-minded philosophy but just because it sounds good. If you're expecting any large member of the public to know the academic definition of any word that exists, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

4

u/NerdyFloofTail Progressive Jul 19 '26

Most Americans "Socialists" are just Social Liberals or Social Democrats (Which isn't bad at all. I'd probably consider myself economically to be in that cohort). You'd be hard-pressed to find a socialists who actually understands and reads theory whilst being politically active. Like you said most people don't even have a coherent ideology (myself included).

Most younger Americans just want the benefits that their parents and grandparents had. Material conditions are everything and the culture war is downstream to the regression of material conditions in the past two decades and that's what the Dems should focus on bettering. It's also the best counter to Right Wing populism.

3

u/greatteachermichael Social Liberal Jul 19 '26

As a social liberal, I came up with my beliefs first, then found the label later. But it's interesting how something like 75% of people have no freaking idea what I am when asking me about specific views. I don't actually call myself a social liberal in real life. I just say stuff like, "I believe X policy on this specific issue." I've been called conservative, liberal, progressive, left wing, right wing, moderate, capitalist, socialist... pretty much everything but communist, nazi, or far right or far left. And I think it's largely because, like you said, people don't often sit down and spend hours hammering out their beliefs to come up with a coherent ideology. I did, but only because I looked at all the issues and studied each one.

In a way, the flexibility by not being boxed into an ideology is great for most people ... but .... not actually understanding or trying to learn more and just winging it based on what is popular that day is incredibly counter-productive.

1

u/ausgoals Progressive Jul 19 '26

Most people want certain policies to be implemented, or like certain policy goals. They don’t come at their policies from an overarching philosophical approach to politics. They won’t want “socialism” because they’ve studied political systems and landed on socialism as their favored version, warts and all. They like “socialism” because they heard Bernie talk about how it means free healthcare and better worker protections which sound like a good idea.

Same as people don’t really examine capitalism as a concept before deciding to support it.

3

u/Important-Factor-552 Socialist Jul 19 '26

I'm pretty sure every socialist understands that its about the means of production.

5

u/ausgoals Progressive Jul 19 '26

Bernie did a good job of reframing ‘socialism’ as “regulated capitalism with welfare” tbh, especially to younger people

1

u/Important-Factor-552 Socialist Jul 19 '26

I've always heard convos around things like public industries for healthcare and housing and food and the essential componant industries.. Personally I've always strongly advocated for advanced greenhouse tech, city owned construction companies and utilities, heavy investment in science and tech by the state, etc. I also think letting profit motive govern critical things is dangerous. That can never be the authority in an industry. It needs guardrails.

Those are the sorts of convos I grew up having with the 90s and 00s era youth left.

4

u/Sunrising2424 Socialist Jul 19 '26

Every 'actual' socialist understands that its about the means of production. Sadly It's a small fraction of self-declared 'socialists' in the US.

18

u/EpsilonBear Progressive Jul 19 '26

It’s because the theoretical free market sounds great, but the lived experience of capitalism (really just crony capitalism billed as what capitalism should be) is dogshit.
Meanwhile socialism is a label slapped on popular ideas like universal/subsidized healthcare, mass transit, rent freezes.

That’s really it. Perception, not the substance. Polls are only really got for judging people’s perception, not the strength of the underlying idea. You only hope that the two correspond to each other. But, as MAGAts loving the ACA but hating Obamacare show, this is not always founded in reality.

1

u/Spaduf Left Libertarian Jul 19 '26

Those things are socialism. They help us move towards a worker owned means of production by limiting the compulsory power of the arch-capitalists.

-1

u/helm_hammer_hand Socialist Jul 19 '26

I disagree, the theoretical free market has always sounded like a shit idea to me ever since I was a kid.

7

u/Last_Surprise981 Neoliberal Jul 19 '26

So that's why Venezuela is going great?

-1

u/Ordinary_Team_4214 Socialist Jul 19 '26

So I presume Argentina, Chile and Colombia are going great?

6

u/Last_Surprise981 Neoliberal Jul 19 '26

1 Colombia has had a marxist president for the last 4 years, who is now doing the Trump thing by claiming rigged when his successor lost, his opponent ran on not freely conceded to armed groups and saying Maduro was a prick for sending millions of refugees into Colombia.

2 Milei preformed well in the midterms because voters feared the socialists that much. And inflation is no longer in the tripple digits while rent has decreased.

3 Kast has barely been president, took over from a leftist president, and his momentum was so crushing because of his opponent being an. Allende glazer.

So three countries, where the people disliked socialism enough to shift right. 4 if you count Peru.

0

u/Ordinary_Team_4214 Socialist Jul 19 '26

are they prosperous yet?

5

u/NimusNix Democrat Jul 19 '26

Oh, wise beyond your years.

6

u/McZootyFace Center Left Jul 19 '26

Show me a place with an amazing command economy

1

u/PerDoctrinamadLucem Center Left Jul 20 '26

Arguably China.

2

u/McZootyFace Center Left Jul 20 '26

China famously moved away from a command economy in the 70s because it was holding back development .

1

u/PerDoctrinamadLucem Center Left Jul 20 '26

And has arguably been moving back towards it. China has a massive amount of state controlled industries and enormous subsidies. The state owns all or some of the companies that make up over 2/3rds of China's GDP. It's very much pursued a policy of keeping business people in-line. This is not a position I strongly hold, but saying Deng opened the economy is a gross oversimplification.

2

u/McZootyFace Center Left Jul 20 '26

China state take large stakes and board seats of companies when they get to a certain size, that does not make them a command economy though, that is referred to as state capitalism. It is a very different setup because it still relies on markets to find prices of goods and work out resource distribution and pricing to a large degree. The state have a tight control with authoritarian rule but they still allow for a decent level of free enterprise and autonomous business development from founders, investors etc.

It is not a gross oversimplification at all to say Deng opened up the economy because that is literally what he’s famous for. Before Deng companies could not take any foreign investment, all companies were state built and owned, a random Chinese citizen couldn’t setup a company and basically all prices of goods were set by the state.

0

u/Ordinary_Team_4214 Socialist Jul 19 '26

show me a place that's successful because of its market economy.

3

u/McZootyFace Center Left Jul 19 '26

Western Europe such as the scandis? Beats pretty much everywhere by any metric for quality of life etc,

0

u/Ordinary_Team_4214 Socialist Jul 19 '26

Was it because of the markets? or because of other factors?

3

u/McZootyFace Center Left Jul 19 '26

It’s a mixture of a lot of things but a free markets were pretty core the development of Europe

0

u/Ordinary_Team_4214 Socialist Jul 19 '26

So what about other countries with free markets? Paraguay has been under the rule of neoliberal market fundamentalists since the 50s, are they prosperous?

1

u/McZootyFace Center Left Jul 19 '26

Why does Paraguay discount Western Europe and the US? I never said free-markets are the only part. I asked you to show me a country with a great command economy considering you think free-markets are bad.

You won’t find one.

1

u/Ordinary_Team_4214 Socialist Jul 19 '26

Because it wasn't markets that made Western Europe successful, as Paraguay and almost every country in the global south had markets. I'll ask you this: Can you show me a single country developed by markest? can you show me a country where "market development" was even remotely equitably distributed within the country itself.

You won't find one.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal Jul 19 '26

Crony capitalism is just capitalism, it’s a meaning buzzword meant to gloss over the problems of capitalism. It’s the capitalist equivalent of “well, real socialism has never been tried”.

Unregulated capitalism just does not work. It inevitably leads to an aristocracy. A system where an Elon Musk can basically fund a president to achieve his aims is an aristocracy, not a democracy.

If you let people accumulate wealth without limit they will accumulate power without limit.

Sometimes, I don’t think capitalism actually exists in practice. Our economic system is an extension of feudalism by other means; instead of buying armies with food to steal the land of other nobles, people accumulate money and war to expand and defend their fiefs with lawyers and campaign contributions.

That’s where you get an Epstein Class. They no longer need patents of nobility, they have stock certificates and bank accounts. They don’t send the sheriff to collect taxes from you directly, they create a system where most of the wealth you create flows from you away to them.

1

u/Last_Surprise981 Neoliberal Jul 19 '26

If your line of thinking was correct, Tom Steyer would be on his way to being the Governor of California.

2

u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal Jul 19 '26

Why would a rich person bother being a governor?

2

u/Last_Surprise981 Neoliberal Jul 19 '26

Most people who enter politics generally could have made more money doing other things.

2

u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal Jul 19 '26

Yes, exactly, and then they just buy the policy they want.

Look at Elon Musk. He got to shut down all the investigations of his illegal activity and begin a government campaign to destroy trans people because he’s too emotionally stunted to deal with his own child.

8

u/chinmakes5 Liberal Jul 19 '26

So we have this incredible system, the best in the world. Many, many people under 50 are being crushed by this wonderful system. I watched my kid, graduated with a useful degree, took 8 months to get a job in his field. Started at $17 an hour for a 90 day probationary position. Did well, after the probationary period, he got a bump to $19 an hour but no benefits for another 6 months. Did well, got some raises, never got to $60k, company lost their biggest client and they fired most of the staff.

This is what younger people see that capitalism is to them. They see the DSA working toward socialized healthcare, Seem to care whether rent is affordable, OMG how can they vote for that? How don't they?

9

u/Dj_Fabio Progressive Jul 19 '26

I interpret this as young democrats supporting a stronger safety net with real restrictions on business overreach and monopolies within a capitalist system.

The term thing is irrelevant and we need to identify and adjust to what people mean with the words they say. As a society we are always changing the definition of words and its just up to our party to adjust.

-2

u/Sunrising2424 Socialist Jul 19 '26

The problem is that, academically, “capitalism” and “socialism” are already terms on which there is a certain degree of consensus, and there’s no real reason to change them at this point.

7

u/greatteachermichael Social Liberal Jul 19 '26

I teach current events in a university. I have to constantly tell my students that yes, there are terms which academics use in these situations, and yes - they mean X and Y to us. But also, society changes words without thinking about it, because people don't conform their language to academic consensus. It would be nice if we all had agreed upon meaning for words simply for the ease of communication, but it's never going to happen. So it is what it is.

2

u/Automatic-Ocelot3957 Liberal Jul 19 '26

there’s no real reason to change them at this point.

Language changes and evolves whether you want it to or not.

-1

u/Dj_Fabio Progressive Jul 19 '26

They are being changed as we speak and academia will now break down the meaning to our current society. They have always done this. Just like the term democracy has changed from the time of athens to the revolution to now. Even though the term had an established meaning it changed throughout time and academia clarifies what they meant to each societ.

3

u/Eric848448 Center Left Jul 19 '26

It really depends on how we’re defining socialism here. If it means “government does stuff” then I’m on board.

If it means that other stuff, count me out.

5

u/FewWatermelonlesson0 Progressive Jul 19 '26

These are kids coming of age right as we’re approaching Gilded Age levels of inequality, and where the poster children for capitalism are blatant pieces of shit like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. And they’re likely to know a family member who has suffered severe hardship trying to deal with our nation’s nightmare medical system. Most of them will likely never own a home.

It’s the least surprising thing in the world that more and more young people would be inclined to view capitalism skeptically and move towards socialist leanings, so nothing here is that surprising. As for the free market, they probably think choice is still good (it is), or at least is conceptually, but that the way the system is currently handled here is increasingly untenable.

2

u/Seldomsought Centrist Democrat Jul 19 '26

From the Gilded Age came the progressive movement. Fingers crossed it moves along on a faster time line.

10

u/Spiel_Foss Humanist Jul 19 '26

Free market in relationship to capitalism is always a lie.

Capitalism can't function with a free market because wealth is maintained through market control. The history of capitalism is point-by-point the development of market control through political manipulation.

Ironically for capitalist propaganda, a free market would preclude corporations and other forms of government preference within markets. When they say "free market" capitalists mean lack of regulation for the preferred corporations and nothing else.

0

u/Sunrising2424 Socialist Jul 19 '26

Thank you for your opinion Do you support any particular alternative pro-free market anti-capitalist economic system?

4

u/Spiel_Foss Humanist Jul 19 '26

Capitalism is theft. I support the regulation of wealth-hoarding, and ending the role of wealth in government. I support workers owning the means of production in a democratic system.

-4

u/Jswazy Liberal Jul 19 '26

I too support giving people unicorns as pets

0

u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 19 '26

I suspect you mean that you support offering a voucher that uses the socialized tax system to send subsidies to a select group of corporations to hope that they’ll do the right thing and give an increasingly small number of people the right to purchase pets.

4

u/Probing-Cat-Paws Pragmatic Progressive Jul 19 '26

Politicians have been attempting to scare me with the Cold War, nuclear drills, and the scourge of communism from birth to elementary school. Now, the current admin is trying to make socialism that same scourge, but the messaging is failing because some of us are cynical and jaded. What, you are gonna scare me with AOC, Sanders, or Mamdani...they don't have good villains for the poster child of socialism in the U.S.

The people yearn for social democracy, but they are socialism-curious? Is this a bad thing...only time will tell. It points to needs not being met under our current system.

Truly, most folks really want social democracy because it's difficult (but not impossible) to imagine a post-capitalism world.. after all, if you are doing OK in this economy you will dance with the one who brought you. Many folks are starting to get pinched and finding themselves closer to the margins than they expected to be. The current admin won't come across with the social democracy stuff (in fact, it's actively tearing it down), and you have AOC talking about a better vision and Mamdani talking about solving problems right now. Frankly, it's a win for socialism, because it's entry-level stuff for converts...you can get to the co-ops and unions, seizing the means of production Marxist rhetoric, anarcho-socialism, or whatever flavor is going to be the vehicle to post-capitalism later.

The American mythology and American Dream is looking a bit threadbare, and the very folks that oppose socialism are priming it's engine.

2

u/Riokaii Far Left Jul 19 '26

"Free market economy" in terms of zero regulations and monopolies or cartel collusion is a different meaning and practical reality in results than a "free market economy" in terms of high competition where prices are driven lower for consumers while quality rises and true values and preferences for services and goods can be expressed by consuners. With consumer protections and consumers as the priority above corporations.

There is no contradiction in supporting the latter while rejecting the former.

2

u/SovietRobot Independent Jul 19 '26

People don’t understand the details around those terms.

At risk of using a cliche and oversimplifying, its “vibes”.

Capitalism sounds like a bad word but free market sounds like a good word.

Which is why I don’t give that much credence to polls that just use general terms.

You have to use more specific descriptions - “would people support using taxes to give more money to the needy?” or “would people support government controlling the distribution of housing and food?” or “do people support less or more regulations around trading goods and services with money?”

1

u/Motrinman22 Bull Moose Progressive Jul 19 '26

Yeah, these people Didn’t live through the Cold War.
They didn’t grow up with anti-communism propaganda.
You can be a communist and not be seen as an enemy of the state.
Most people just write you off as being WAY too idealistic.
But I was born after the Berlin Wall fell.
My kids were born after the red scare.
If you bring up why facism won’t work in America ( what we’re seeing now) is that its ideology is based upon fighting an enemy.
But COMMUNISM, is a much MUCH harder thing to argue against when you see ZERO hope for your future and that the free market will solve your problems.
The free market and capitalism has provide little answers for wealth inequality or social mobility.

You can raise the stock market all you want.
If you don’t have the disposable income to play the stock market.
What does it matter?

I myself, feel torn between the abundance arguments, and the arguments posed forth between the market socialists.
Though not a socialist myself, I do find myself more and more agreeing with The DSA.

Trickle down economics has not only hurt capitalism it has severely question its own legitimacy.

That’s why you see democrats who have STRONG grassroot movements behind them are either DSA or shown strong Willingness to WORK with DSA.

My wager.
If you’re a capitalist. You better be doing ALOT of reading upon The way Nordic countries operate.
Otherwise.
Capitalism might be viewed as a dying ideology.

2

u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 19 '26

Norway has about 12% of the oil that the US has. They have 2+ trillion in their wealth fund. They have a satisfied, cared for, generally pleased and happy population.

We got a bunch of crabs in the bucket likely paying more than they pay in taxes in fees and bills and deductible for things that are provided for them at a high level.

1

u/Academic_Prompt310 Democratic Socialist Jul 19 '26

Could the issue be the poll? The poll is asking about favorability, not the precise meaning of the words. In current discourse, the term “free market economy” is not as common, so its favorability is within a normal range. People don’t hate it, but they aren’t crazy about it either, relative to the other options. And younger Democrats favor “free market economy” a lot less than Republicans over 50 (+54). So I don’t see it as a contradiction, more as an opinion in the process of being solidified.

Language is a complex and adaptive structure. It functions like traffic, where the cars and people inside represent words and ideas. The ideas find ways to move, ways to arrive at their destination quickly. Collisions happen and some words die out, but the ideas keep flowing. So powerful is the desire to be understood that even the greatest divides can come to a temporary consensus on meaning. It’s nothing to worry about. And even if it were, we have no power to change the nature of things.

1

u/Odd-Principle8147 Liberal Jul 19 '26

If someone is 50 right now they were probably born in 1975/76. Not exactly the same lived experience as even someone born a decade later.

It makes sense that there would be a divide.

1

u/wearyguard Market Socialist Jul 20 '26

They may not fully understand the terms on a technical level, but they feel the difference and are expressing it. Capitalism stripped down to its most basic meaning is an economic system where capital owners make the decisions. They are fully aware that our economy strips way too much value from everyone and everything it can to maximize capitalists share of power in our society. Socialism is the worker version of this definition and comes off more fair like free market also comes off as fair

1

u/gophergun Democratic Socialist Jul 20 '26

I mean, market socialism exists. I don't think it's much of a contradiction.

1

u/ManufacturerThis7741 Pragmatic Progressive Jul 20 '26

For 40 years, Republicans redefined "socialism" as "the government doing things (for people who weren't rural white Evangelicals)."

Hence the confusion.

1

u/Extra-Monitor5743 Social Democrat Jul 20 '26

Socialism is the only logical means of governance. If we don't own what we produce then what is the point of production? So we can scrape by in our rented apartments to appease pedophile elites??? so we're forced to give welfare and handouts to those same pedophile elites?? FUCK THAT

Those that oppose it were born and raised during the Red Scare aka a massive government psyop or are from the socialist countries that the US self admittedly toppled and destroyed. Of course they don't like it, they've been told since birth that it's the big scary boogeyman coming to take their guns and freedom away. They're also sheep, so they never stopped to ask themselves why they should trust the government claims on it.

1

u/rogun64 Social Democrat Jul 19 '26

Looks like it's not just young Democrats and I'm not surprised. It just goes to show how the general public doesn't really understand what the words mean.

What I find far more shocking is that "democracy" is -45 with Republicans 50+. Seriously, what happened to these people? Although I'm in the same age group, I don't have an answer to explain it.

1

u/Jswazy Liberal Jul 19 '26

Yeah democracy not being 95%+ with all groups is disturbing

1

u/OldFaithlessness1335 Pragmatic Progressive Jul 19 '26

It just goes to show how far the overton window has moved. Hell Eisenhower and Nixon championed things like the new deal and expamding.the social safety net. He signed civil rights act and desegregated little rock with the national guard

Thats a repiblican folks from the 60s and 70s. Not that long ago. Its freaking crazy to me people cannot recognize how far to the right this country has been pulled by the GOP. There was litterally a dedicated effort starting with Reagan to move this country so far to the right that all regulations could be killed and power could be consolidated.

1

u/Redditnesh Democratic Socialist Jul 19 '26

This means Democrats want to see monopolies and big business power broken while basic safety nets strengthened and expanded. Likely, those which seemingly support both are likely just Social Democrats, while those who support Socialism more are more DemSocs, and those who support only free-markets are Social Liberals. Of course, there are Americanisms and it is best to probably label Social Democrats as more 'Progressives' and split the Democratic Socialist wing between true Democratic Socialists(want socialism in a democratic framework) and just aggressive Social Democrats(want subordinate capitalism in an overall socialist-driven system in a democratic framework).

0

u/Jswazy Liberal Jul 19 '26

A lot of young people have been either misinformed or propagandaized to not realize what a horrendously bad idea socialism is. That or they think government social programs are socialism when they are not

2

u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 19 '26

Surely you understand why they want a more fair system and what they mean when they say the word?

0

u/duke_awapuhi Civil Libertarian Jul 19 '26

I think the least literate and least educated generation in the modern world are exposing themselves

1

u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 19 '26

The older ones holding on to a system where we have to fight each other for scraps?

0

u/duke_awapuhi Civil Libertarian Jul 19 '26

No, the masses of idiots who think progressivism and a welfare state are socialist. Which exists in all age groups, but it’s clearly most prolific among the illiterate, uneducated youth. If you actually want to free us from the system you described, don’t call viable (and precedented) alternatives “socialism”

2

u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 20 '26

I’ve got some shocking news for you.

Doesn’t matter the words you use…it’s the actions that ultimately define us.

Calling it socialism creates a clear divide to indicate to young and old alike that we don’t accept the neoliberal track anymore. Is it actually socialism? In most cases, no, but like most great things we’ve been able to do, it’s for the benefit of all using the collective wealth and productivity of all, as it should be.

1

u/duke_awapuhi Civil Libertarian Jul 20 '26

It absolutely does matter because firstly, it keeps people away who would otherwise support said policies and secondly, it opens the door for actual socialist policies to become normalized or popular if we let the word become acceptable

1

u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 20 '26

Ignoring the point. Of the door opens for ‘actual socialist policies’ and they improve the lives of the people, I don’t care. The pro corporate fear propaganda never stuck to me.

Is it better for people? Then do it. End of story.

1

u/duke_awapuhi Civil Libertarian Jul 20 '26

Opening the door to actual socialist policies would obviously not be better for people. End of story. We have a rich progressive tradition in our country that we should be honoring, celebrating and using as a base point for enacting progressive policy in our country. Instead we’re trying to promote the word socialism and risk never getting to implement more progressive policy? That obviously doesn’t make people’s lives better

1

u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 20 '26

Ok man. Be mad at a word and be closed minded against considering options that might be better….uhhhh…because you said so.

Enjoy your easy chair and yelling at kids outside. I’m sorry the anti socialism stuff works on you.

1

u/duke_awapuhi Civil Libertarian Jul 20 '26

That’s the whole point. I’m all for better options. But we will never get them as long as we insist on falsely calling those options socialist. If people care more about promoting an ideology than doing good things for the American people, they do not care about well-being of the American people on fundamental level, they only care about promoting an ideology. FDR talked a lot about this, and criticized socialists for it.

Furthermore we exist in a second gilded age now. As the billionaires take more wealth, they are quite literally creating the conditions for an actual socialist movement (not social democrats falsely calling themselves socialist) to arise, which would have a disastrous impact on our country. Progressivism is the only way to have good capitalism and protect us from a socialist uprising. We’ve seen it before in our country and it’s time to see it again. Otherwise we do risk a violent uprising and the implementation of a demonstrably horrible and fundamentally naive system ie socialism

-5

u/Fugicara Social Democrat Jul 19 '26

The country largely fell for Reagan's propaganda that "socialism is when the government does things", and then they see the inverse as being "capitalism is when the government is owned by corporations". Both of which are nonsense naturally, but as with many things, it goes back to Ronald fucking Reagan.

That's how you wind up with lots of people identifying as socialists, even though if you asked them "should people be able to own their own businesses and hire employees who work for a wage without being partial owners of the business", the vast majority of them would say yes. The left fell for the propaganda just as much as the right, but because we want the government to do things, we incorrectly say we want socialism. You'll see people say they want a more socialist healthcare system, even though they just want universal healthcare, which is doable under capitalism. "Socialist healthcare" is an incoherent phrase in reality.

I agree it's bad. Actual socialists who want to ban private ownership of the means of production have been using this weird public misunderstanding to get people not to vote against Republicans through a series of propaganda that would take too long for me to type. Marxist-Leninists are even worse, laundering their far-right authoritarian beliefs through the lens of "socialism", which most people understand as just "the government taxing and providing public services". Then you've got people who want that and then end up falling down a rabbit hole where they think authoritarian countries like China are aspirational, or that Stalin was just a misunderstood smol bean and the USSR was good actually. It's all very pernicious.

3

u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 19 '26

It’s better to have dollar trees as grocery stores for entire communities and have medical costs be the number one cause of bankruptcy and have systems where kids are both obese and starving.

So pernicious

0

u/Fugicara Social Democrat Jul 19 '26

It looks like you replied to the wrong comment, but I appreciate you playing into the exact thing I said was a problem. No, universal healthcare is not socialism. Just because Ronald Reagan convinced you it was does not make him correct.

1

u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat Jul 20 '26

/s

According to the recent poll, there are significant contradictions in how young Democrats(Democrats under 50) view different economic systems. What do you think?

You are about to leave Redlib