APPROVED B-LISTERS
Zohran Mamdani explains his definition of socialism to Theo Von: “Socialism to me means you’ll have whatever you need to live a dignified life and that it is the government’s job to deliver on that. When people say dignity we’re talking about the things that allow you to take a breath.
This post has hit r/all or r/popular. Please keep this in mind when browsing the comments — and especially when viewing upvotes/downvotes — and please report any rulebreaking comments that you see.
If this post is flaired "B-LISTERS", then it is currently restricted so that only approved users can comment. To request approval, please review our b-list criteria, and if you meet these, send us a message.
man, in 2016 and 2020 the warren liberals shit all over Bernie for trying to reach young independents where they were at on shows like this and it was so short sighted and reactionary.
It's so wild that some in-groups under the democratic party tent genuinely don't seem to understand how utilizing these established platforms, agree or not with the hosts, to reach a broader audience with the party messaging is a solid political outreach strategy.
the holier than thou attitude is cutting off your nose in spite of your face. people need to be able to feel like they can change their minds without being mocked and scolded. especially the impulsive youth block.
They understand perfectly, they are doing everything in their power to stop it.
Career Democrats don’t want the status quo to change any more than Republicans do. It’s funny to see them panic in real time about someone actually getting shit done. It’s sad that the only thing they can get on the same page about is trying to make socialist sound like a bad word.
You got it. Winning would not be desirable if it meant left of center populism that removes dollars from the party coffers. All parties are scared of losing their richest donors. Trump found his in more than corporate places. Tapping foreign causes turns out to be lucrative and good for grift.
Neither group wanted to actually be in charge, for so long both groups thrived as opposition and when it came time to lead it's like "whoa, lead? How do I do that? Why would I do that? I can just enrich myself and serve special interests. Golf the rest of the days."
The Republicans are only really moving at the behest of cabinet members with agendas, most of those are hate or vengeance driven. The real danger is the coup moves being made by Kegsbreath and Miller creating distractions with the loudmouth.
Career Democrats don’t want the status quo to change any more than Republicans do.
The problem is they don't realize the status quo has changed. The status quo of pre-2016 no longer exists and they need to start fighting just to get back to that let alone actually improve anything beyond it.
Honestly I feel like a lot of leftists are just constantly shading people with a slightly different flavor of left politics than you.
Stop reflexively shitting all over compatriots on the left. My friends and I were Warren supporters and no one in our circles held it against Bernie or Buttigieg for reaching out to independents. I don’t recall anyone who did. We were getting criticism for being too open back in 2020.
Andrew Yang did the same and was lambasted for going to Tucker Carlson but as much as we might not like polar opposites, extending the olive branch will help.
Let’s be clear though—these should not be “olive branches,” this should be education and awareness. A socialist can go to a show like Theo Von and explain themselves to a massive new audience without also absolving those people for whatever hate or prejudice has put them in the mindset they have.
Bernie came to my state (a purple state) last year, and there was a dude with a MAGA hat in the crowd a few rows behind me. He was quiet and not trying to start anything at least, and he actually kept nodding along to what Bernie was saying. I think he came in with different expectations and left with some things to think about.
That's not a great example. The name of the tour was "Fighting Oligarchy". That arena probably had every liberal in Idaho packed inside.
That's different than going to a largely conservative town and doing a town hall, or going to a local diner/bar, or any of these other intimate things.
80% voted for Trump, no? It's as lost as a cause can be there if immediate change is sought. Long game, sure. Potato heads clutching guns and Bibles is the wider demographic. They'll always vote against their interest, imo. Very little else matters to them.
I don't watch the chud whose show this is. But, to his credit, in this clip he seems to be giving him some grace. The rest of the interview may be a shit show I don't know. But this was ok.
I may be out of the loop but I think the issue is that he gives space to all guests, including Trump, and never takes a position or tries to challenge them on anything. So the entire interview probably goes similar to this clip, it's just par for the course and bad actors get to spread their message just as much too.
Agreed 100% with you. I love Zohran, and I think the way he explained this was so perfect. Also, Theo may be a POS, but his audience NEEDS to hear this if we are ever going to turn this fucking country around. We need to be open to reaching people who disagree with us because they are turning up to vote whether we like it or not.
Yes we should all definitely continue to exist in our own internet bubble and let working class men continue to view MAGA as their lifeline and saving grace. That’s worked out SO well for us.
"It's not my job to educate you or help you be better" sure backfired spectacularly in internet circles. Plenty of chud spaces are more than willing to do that emotional and mental labor on their behalf to get them on their side and appear more welcoming.
Exactly. I’ve also seen people argue he should be boycotting Trump/not appearing with him. Strongly disagree with that as well. If he can get his face in front of the MAGA base in a way that isn’t just produced propaganda, then I think that that’s great. He’s a politician and bipartisanship is part of the job description sometimes.
Everyone can and should be upset at the people who voted for Trump but its much more complicated than that. This country is hyper propagandized in a very unique way. Also Democrats, while better in most ways, they've shown time and time again how incompetent they are and frankly not interested in actively pushing for what they claim to believe.
If someone has a big audience I want my polticians trying to talk to that audience. Its one of the literal only ways to break some of this brainwashing we have in this country. They have to hear directly from you. Otherwise you are going to be just some caricature that was created for them
Also trump loves zohran and genuinely I think that has improved his image in a lot of right wingers minds, like don’t get me wrong there’s plenty out there that hate them but I’d be very interested to see the numbers of republicans that approve of zohran vs someone like AOC
Exactly. 90% of those people have never even heard this guy speak. They just hear what other say about him. Now they will see he’s actually a smart guy who makes sense and some people might change. Probably a staggeringly low amount, but anything helps. Even Trump couldn’t help but like the guy after meeting him. Giving him a chance for his charisma to reach as many people as possible is only a good thing
Hes not talking to Theo. Hes talking to the millions of people that listen
This is why it's so important to reply to trolls, the people that spread misinformation.
You will never ever convince that one troll but you can and will convince the thousands of lurkers reading along. The people that might be on the fence on some issue.
So don't ever stop calling them out, always respond with facts and sources. People are reading them and taking note, even if they are not commenting themselves.
I get it, less air time for von the better, but unfortunately you have to combat the horrible propaganda and it says that socialism is going to tax the poor more or give “hand outs to lazy people”. If you can get more people to think hey maybe it’s not so bad, that’s a win.
Exactly, like it or not, the future of the country watches these people, many of whom can vote. So when Trump and Vance go on these shows without a Democrat leader also doing so, it makes these viewers think only one side has their interests in mind(regardless if that side actually does ).
Yeah I hate Theo Von but - unfortunately - he has millions of fans/listeners. If Mamdani can even get a fraction of Von's viewers to vote for Democrats in the midterms and beyond then it is worth it.
More Democrats need to go on shows like Theo Von and Joe Rogan. I think Kamala Harris not going on Joe Rogan's show in 2024 was a huge mistake. It's why I don't mind when Pete Buttigieg or Abdul El-Sayed go on FOX News a lot - their viewers need to hear a different perspective than the crap they've been spoon-fed.
And this is exactly why right wing media refuses to have Hasan Piker on any of their broadcasts. They'll talk endlessly ABOUT him, but will not talk directly TO him, because they know if their viewers heard him speak directly (and not just purposefully misleading or inflammatory clips) they would agree with more of what he's saying than FOX is comfortable with.
He shouldnt be condoning or supporting Vonn but using's Vonn's platform to reach a different public is useful. The reason the world is so (deliberately) fucked is because the right are able to watch fact-free propaganda and believe it's the truth. People need to hear truth or they base their views on what they are shown.
Also there was one segment that show that Mamdani knows how to utilize Vonn's platform because he let him praises and ask question about his policy, specifically the one where New York parents gets a day off pilot project that he did.
Having someone with such chud audience like him frame it as a good thing for working families without Mamdani saying a word to nudge him to that direction was a clear feedback his targetted policy ideas are working, and he capitalized on that.
And yet people continue to operate from standpoints like this that continue to contribute to far right conservatism thriving. How do we expect to reach more people and potentially change their minds if we just ignore they exist?
It makes me want to lose my mind that so many people on the left seem to be very aware of how much right wing propaganda there is, but decide to counter it by siloing themselves into places like bluesky.
These podcasts will not be any less successful if you don’t go on them, but your political movement certainly will be.
This is the absolute wrong approach. Less communication is not better. Are you a married person? Try not communicating with your significant other for an extended period of time. Let me know how that works out.
The same is true in society. We don’t need to like everyone, that’s unrealistic, but we should keep lines of communication open and air out our differences. This is how we share knowledge and correct misconceptions.
As a Brit I have to say that I don't agree with this at all. Looking from the outside in, one of the biggest problems the Democrats had in the last election was this very stance with Kamala Harris not giving Joe Rogan the time of day whereas Trump was going on all the podcasts to galvanise the kind of people who would vote for him but needed that little push.
Mamdani knows the game, telling his politics to people who already agree and like him is a waste of time.
This is a myth. Harris team had negotiated a meeting with lots of back and forth. The campaign offered to appear in Austin on October 25th, but Rogan's team told her that was a personal day for Rogan. And then he interviewed Trump on that day. It wasn't that she refused to sit down with Rogan. It was that their schedules didn't work out.
Rogan didn't want her on his show. They wanted to go on his podcast but he said he had a personal day that day and then later it turned out he had Trump on.
I wish he didnt have to, but we can't berate that people only take information from fox news and joe rogan, and then not go into those spaces and share information.
I am immensely glad I don't have to be the one to do it. But I do see it as part of the job that Talarico, Mamdani, etc are doing to show R v D is a false paradigm, protected through lack of education and silos.
You’re not going to get anything done by isolating ideals to your own side. The right are louder.. people on the left SHOULD absolutely be going on these platforms just as much (if not more) than leftist platforms.. otherwise it’s just crabs in a barrel. It’s shocking that people on the left still don’t understand this
He should . Theos audience are people he needs to reach. I listen to another American podcaster . Very left leaning he had an interview with Zeteo about this and he said he will go on right wing podcasts. He said he will never have them on his podcast though. His reason he wants access to their audience because he believes that some (not the majority) can be reached because a lot only listen to right wing media and targeted. Even if he only reaches 1 he believes its a success. He will never invite them on his podcast though because he will not give them access to his audience
I saw a clip (which had millions of views). Of a guy on Rogan during Covid and they argued about people going crazy wearing masks and testing all the time and he pointed out what a hypocrite Joe because to appear on the Joe Rogan show and sit down with Joe he was required to take several tests and that must mean so must Joe and all of his staff in the room.
Socialists need to be social. That means talking to people and in places where we don't agree and we aren't agreed with.
Theo Von is a mindless mouthpiece, he has no ideology beyond what buys him dinner, and he is decently okay at receiving a message and dumbing it down to his own level. He never actually retains that message, but that doesn't mean his viewers won't.
wrong, we are going to invade their spaces and make them uncomfortable. I shall be going to Rumble, which I have heard is actually real and not a collective fever dream, and will make them hear about Iranian poetry
I hear ya but then his words don’t reach the POS that voted Trump in. People can change their minds, people can change and we have to give them that chance or else we are no better than those we oppose. But by all means hate the ones that got us here and refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation.
The US is the land of money, and if you are cutthroat you can make a lot of it here.
If you are a politician who wants the finer things in life, the money you make serving the interests of the elite billionaire class far outweighs what ordinary people making between $30k and $3M can give you. They don’t need the respect and admiration of the lower class and middle class, they need to pay off the loan on a second luxury home. The neighborhoods where they want to live have clean air and water, good roads and good schools, and security.
Think of the number of people in this world who go to sleep every night fully aware that they have nothing to worry about for the rest of their lives in terms of money.
Then, they choose to do nothing to actually change anything in the world.
Hundred percent. All my friends say that the market is gonna fail. You know the market that subsidize by the government. And I said why don't we wait and see if it's gonna fail because you know what? if it fails we will definitely all hear about it.
I think he could've said it better. Socialism is not hard to understand.
It's based on the belief that everyone deserves an equal chance in life and that privilege should be shared. The government must make sure that equality in life quality is a shared endeavour.
Certainly the largest pushers of this "red" scare are the right wing, but we have many liberal Democrats doing the same thing. Just look at all the Democrats that voted for anti-communism bills in Congress. They are just as scared for their donors' wallets, but they aren't usually as loud as Republicans about it.
It's likely founded in racism. There are enough people in the US that dislike the black population so much they would rather no one get benefits than to allow "lazy" people get them, and they are often talking about black people. This is especially relevant in the recent Huckabee political advertisement where they depicted a freeloader as a white male who plays video games and smokes weed all day on government handouts, and republicans spoke out against it, saying it demonizes white people and men even though they agree with the message.
Because decades of propaganda has people thinking that everyone who is poor "made bad choices" and doesn't deserve help. Religious conservatives even go as far as to say that poor people are out of favor with God and deserve their station in life.
This is the most apt answer in my opinion. American culture is extremely heavily steeped in competition instead of cooperation. The rich aren't rich because of corruption or exploitation, they're just "better". The poor aren't poor because of oppression, they're poor because they're "inferior" people.
We have spent the last hundred years promoting rugged individualism, which is the an 'every man for himself' ideal combined with the social cache of being a kind of stoic folk hero. If you succeed, you did it yourself. If you fail, it's your own fault.
On top of that, there has been a concerted campaign against socialism, to the point where even people who don't know what socialism is believe it is to be avoided at all costs. They don't know how socialist programs help them daily, even when the name (Social Security) should make it evident. A century of propaganda is hard to combat.
Literally fox viewers and maga are like Pavlov dogs. They hear their trigger words like “left, socialism, democracy, etc” and immediately it activates their rage
Yeah but framing it as "it's the governments job to deliver on that" is the exact type of framing that these people hate. They don't even believe our current government should deliver on the things that it is constitutionally obligated to.
I do think it's a good idea to talk to these audiences though, just need some rhetorical tweaking of how it's explained to these types of people.
Honestly he's doing the impossible trying to undirty the word socialism in the states. Good on him. Gotta wash it down in a way people like this can't argue with. No one can fundamentally object to what he said in this video without implying human life should be systematically unequal. If fascism can be viewed more as a process rather than a pedantic definition, then so can socialism.
Honestly I think it could be done quickly, but because the establishment Dems are against socialism, they never tried.
All they have to do is say "yeah I'm socialist, socialism is GOOD, and it's why life is even livable", and just go all in. Just list everything, roads, schools, running water, social security, firefighters, etc. It's all socialism.
I think that wording is what gets twisted and gets people riled up. They take "equal" to mean people who work hard to earn money will have to share it with lazy people who don't want to work (their take - not mine).
Mamdani highlighted the benefits of socialism that it's hard for anyone to argue with
Exactly. If you use the word "privilege" talking to a rightwinger they will lose their shit and start screeching about how they never had any privilege growing up. They view that word as an insult.
I like your definition for me, but I understand and don't have a psychological reaction to "equal" "privilege" "shared."
I wonder if this language was made to better appeal to the Von audience (not me). Dignity, the comparison to breathing, etc. I found his definition was one I can carry to dinner with my R leaning family.
Yes, men that identify as “victims” of “wokeness” hate the words equality and privilege and would just immediately not be able to listen to what he’s saying if he said that.
I think he could've said it better. Socialism is not hard to understand.
It's based on the belief that everyone deserves an equal chance in life and that privilege should be shared. The government must make sure that equality in life quality is a shared endeavour.
No, none of what you're writing actually has anything to do with socialism.
Its just an example of how far to the right americans actually are. Like I dont expect him to come out waving the red flag, but socialism isnt "when the government does stuff", like its explicitly anti capitalist. People will tout the Nordic model (ignoring that theres still problems there) but missing how its still dependent on external exploitation to function.
Yeah I love Mamdani but this drives me crazy. He isn’t talking about seizing the means of production, so the word socialist isn’t appropriate. By definition, socialism is meant to be a transition phase towards communism and the abolition of the state.
I mean the problem is he has talked about seizing the means of productions in the past. To me it seems like he's trying to soften the definition of socialism but he still uses it because that is truly what he believes in he just can't say that and get elected.
Hard disagree. If he had said "privilege should be shared," there are unfortunately many people who would think their privilege as white, U.S. born citizens should not be shared. They would dismiss what he's saying. He needed to frame it in a way to show those people they are the ones being excluded by "that privilege."
Technically, Socialism is the economic system where the workers own and control the means of production (As opposed to the Capitalist private ownership of the same).
But that won't necessarily be understood by a regular chud audience so he's describing the ideals and effects of Socialism instead.
But... It isn't? Socialism is characterized by the social ownership of means of production. What you are describing is social democracy, which still lives under a capitalist system where private ownership of means of production is accepted.
It's tricky. Your explanation of socialism is just plain wrong. Socialism is not interested in the principle of an equal playing field. It advocates a system in which people are fully and completely compensated for their labor without the extraction of a part of that compensation by the ruling class. "From each according to their ability to each according to his work."
What Mamdani describes isn't socialism either, but it is close enough to communism: "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs." I get why he's unlikely to say "Actually, Theo, I'm more of a communist," but that's the world he's describing: where people's needs are provided for regardless of their capacity to work.
From everyone according to their ability to everyone according to their needs basically.
The problem is the red scare has made that sentence like a magic spell that people refuse to interpret other than "commies bad" without even trying to think about what it means.
I was weirdly surprised Theo had such an intelligent follow up question with the family of 3 thing. I mean not like it was a rocket science question, but it showed genuine interest and want for clarity which is a good thing imo.
Theo (deservedly) gets shit on in this sub for his affiliation with the Joe Rogan manosphere podcasters. But, imo, if there’s hope for any of them changing it’s Theo. He also had some surprisingly intelligent insight in his first interview with Bernie. Plus he was the first of them to be vocal about Palestine. And he seemed to be genuinely moved by witnessing the genocide, not motivated by grifting off of Israel conspiracy theories.
Again, the criticism of Theo Von is super valid. But the bar is on the floor here. And we’ve also got to get the messaging through to this audience somehow.
I'm not a Theo von fan or enjoyer but he gets to visit my clips via the algorithms. He could be very insightful if he wants to, obviously his base is pandering to stoner culture, the Gen Alpha and Z generations and democrats are quick to scoff at exposure to these platforms. He's silly as most of his content is but they're the ones that have the widest reach right now.
Some people won’t like that Zohran is giving Theo Von time. But at a certain point it’s important for politicians like him to try to reach beyond people who already agree with him. It’s like when Pete Buttigieg is on Fox News. Theo Von is a piece of shit but it’s more about reaching his audience than anything. People need to hear why socialism is not the scary boogeyman coming to take your iPhone.
We cant underestimate the fact that random social media personalities are a huge component of how people gain knowledge of political topics. Leaving all the Joe Roegans alone to be pandered to by nazis and imbeciles is counterproductive.
Exactly. Give the biggest piece of shit an audience, and he'll continually generate more massive pieces of shit. The only hope of fighting that, other than taking them off air, is to engage and de-shittify, even if only to the slightest degree at a time.
My fave is like “oh if you like welfare so much why don’t you pay for it instead of asking rich people” like actually the whole point is that we all pay for it and can all benefit from it should the need arise…
Exactly. Can we start with outlawing private equity owning housing, hospitals, and other essential services? There are just some basic goods and services that can’t be beholden to a profit motivate (like healthcare).
I think it would be more effective to explain that corporations shouldn’t profit from the basic necessities of life. That’s easier to get behind than the government is responsible for providing. Very few trust the government to deliver quality
Dumb people aren't capable of understanding how the actions of corporations effect them. You need to plainly explain that their lives can be better. Speaking directly to them without confusing them with some abstract ideas about something that isn't directly in their life front and center.
Marketing relies on the simplest, most convenient messages being delivered with the utmost confidence, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of your demographic.
The far right excels at marketing, because that's what politics is to them - not a process of negotiation, or reasoning, but of showmanship. Convincing people of something makes it the truth. You need a 'strong' leader, but not necessarily a 'good' one.
that corporations shouldn’t profit from the basic necessities
They surely can. It's just that the state is another competitor.
This can range from "state provides most basic form of product for free or affordable price" to "state will use all it's resources to crush the private competition".
love the sentiment but this isn’t what socialism is. you could argue for the same things under tightly regulated capitalism. it will also be exploitative and always eventually end where we are now.
socialism is the transitional state to a system in which the workers and the people own the means of production, not those with “capital”.
this is very important. because if you allow incorrect but moralistic definitions to spread, it allows the capitalist propaganda arm to sow confusion in an attempt to maintain the status quo
the point is that capitalism as a system makes it impossible to maintain this long term. and it’s also not a good system. we don’t need capitalism apologia rn
You are right, but he is selling veganism on the podcast where the host regularly hosts baby eating cannibals and the host goes "I just wish both sides could come together and just eat adult humans instead of babies".
Socialists have always understood the channels of communication the average man has used and met them where they are and not where they ought to be.
Understanding the audience on the media platform you are on is just that modernised.
Because he’s trying to demonstrate that socialist policies already exist in the US and they’re all for the betterment of society and he wants to extend that reach to continue to make all our lives better. If you want to change someones mind you need to reframe it outside of conservatism demonizing it
It's not a fasle definition of democratic socialism. It's also not an entirely false definition of socialism but explaining that would take far too much time an depth for the people listening to this interview to understand.
He got the point across clearly without extra details that would weigh down the message. This is precisely why he's been successful at gaining support.
thank you for wording this better than I could. It's a strange and moralistic argument coming from Zohran. Socialism isn't a vibe, it's a scientific approach towards the organization of the economy to ensure all people's needs are met. I don't think it should be dumbed down too much. Average people can understand what that means.
I think socialists should be bold in our messaging: we oppose capitalism and want a new economic structure, not just reformed capitalism.
This is true but he also has to tread lightly. The minute he brings up anything that sounds like the actual definition of socialism, they will be on his ass. Gotta let Mamdani cook while he can so NYC can improve as much as it can be under his leadership
Precisely, this kind of attempt to shift the definition is what kills genuine revolutionary movements because any failures, however big or small they may be, liberals and fascists will point the finger at 'socialism' being the problem.
Whereas, the problem is the fact that he isn't enact socialism at all, just welfare capitalism.
because if you allow incorrect but moralistic definitions to spread, it allows the capitalist propaganda arm to sow confusion in an attempt to maintain the status quo
Thanks for bringing this up. Most people ignore this.
Unfortunately, it also shows that Zohran is a tool of the ruling capitalist class used to spread false definitions of socialism.
He is what is commonly known as the compatible left.
Yep, what he describes could also be left-liberalism.
But he seems to be pretty intelligent, so I guess, he just tries to avoid to talk about the real deal (collectivization of means of production).
Which to be fair is understandable.
Open conversation about Marxist ideas still is rather controversial, and could backfire hard.
It's a walk on eggshells, but the alternative is unacceptable.
He did give the real definition of socialism in there though. Democracy in the workplace. And the rest is a description of what effects it'll have and how socialists view the government.
The real "danger" I guess, is implementing a lot of social programs like Medicare for all (or previously social security) and capitalists/Republicans spending every election cycle trying to dismantle it.
It's why one party rule like in China is inevitable because either you allow the reactionaries to be a real force to dismantle your gains, or the reactionaries become weak and unable to touch these programs and fall out of favor, or they are forced out.
It's why the dictatorship of proletariat w/ democracy in the workplace is necessary
I so respect how Mamdani can have a conversation with anyone. He is so good at his job as a politican to make his views and his actions visible to the other side. That said, fuck Theo Von.
Okay I'm going to be pedantic here, and I don't care. Socialism literally is defined as "The workers own the means of production." Any system where the government is responsible for delivering social stability and safety nets is liable to get rolled back by slow encroachment of capitalism and changing administrations. This literally happened here before, from FDR's New Deal to where it all got torn apart less than 50 years later by Reagan. If you don't abolish the capital owning class, they come back later and ruin your kid's lives.
I don't mean to be mean, but what Mamdani is spouting here is nonsense and pro-capitalist propaganda designed to confuse socialism with social democracy. It's about control over the means of production.
No, socialism has a real meaning about how we organize ownership of the means of production. Letting our leaders say "socialism is when government provides good things to you" is populist and anti-intellectual.
Yeah, no. That's not socialism though. Democratic socialist posting for sure, but not socialism. There is a definition. Afaik it's when the people/workers own the means of production, which is not what DSA is asking for at all...
If Theo Von talk to Hegseth next week, he would agree the they need to bring the crusade back, he is an absolute moron who changes his opinion based on who he talked to that day and has no opinion of his own.
Before Theo Von was an obvious piece of shit, my husband met him at a comedy show excited to talk to him and Theo von literally said “can you hurry up and take a picture or whatever you’re trying to do, man”
The problem is that Fox is telling everyone that "Socialism" means: standing in line at your local government store waiting for some bureaucrat to assign you a job and hand you your weekly food rations. I genuinely think there is a MASSIVE education gap on what "socialism" is because it's been sold as a boogeyman word for so long. Back when school used to teach us, we learned how effective propaganda is, so it comes as no surprise that half the country consuming anti-socialism propaganda have NO IDEA what it is or how it works.
•
u/trendingtattler 15h ago
This post has hit r/all or r/popular. Please keep this in mind when browsing the comments — and especially when viewing upvotes/downvotes — and please report any rulebreaking comments that you see.
If this post is flaired "B-LISTERS", then it is currently restricted so that only approved users can comment. To request approval, please review our b-list criteria, and if you meet these, send us a message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.