New Poll: Democratic Socialism Is Now Mainstream(jacobin.com)
jacobin.com
New Poll: Democratic Socialism Is Now Mainstream
https://jacobin.com/2025/09/new-poll-democratic-socialism-mainstream/
46 comments
> The different political labels are interesting but also deeply frustrating because it paints people at odds when they're not.
I agree.
I don't necessarily think the two baskets analogy is even the right framework tbh. The important issues imho are transparency, corruption, incentive alignment, feedback loops, it doesn't really matter to me - and I think probably most people - if its in the government or business space.
What matters, at least to me, is how decisions are made, how information flows, and how citizens (or employees) can see whats going on, influence and hold accountable the decision-makers.
I agree.
I don't necessarily think the two baskets analogy is even the right framework tbh. The important issues imho are transparency, corruption, incentive alignment, feedback loops, it doesn't really matter to me - and I think probably most people - if its in the government or business space.
What matters, at least to me, is how decisions are made, how information flows, and how citizens (or employees) can see whats going on, influence and hold accountable the decision-makers.
[deleted]
I agree with you.
Further, it seems to me there are forces at play recently trying to put people at odds with each other over as many dimensions as possible.
What I'm not sure about is whether this is some sort of organic mitosis like force that naturally oscilates over time, an unfortunate accident (e.g. side effects of attention economy) or if it's a conspiracy (e.g. most advertising dollars are spent trying to drive division).
Either way, everyone's constantly being influenced into a victim mentality with boogymen galore.
Further, it seems to me there are forces at play recently trying to put people at odds with each other over as many dimensions as possible.
What I'm not sure about is whether this is some sort of organic mitosis like force that naturally oscilates over time, an unfortunate accident (e.g. side effects of attention economy) or if it's a conspiracy (e.g. most advertising dollars are spent trying to drive division).
Either way, everyone's constantly being influenced into a victim mentality with boogymen galore.
> This shouldn't be some us vs them thing dammit, we all have the same vision for the economy and arguing over the details—because they are details—ought to be civil rather than territory grabbing and flag planting.
You can't kumbaya your way to peace with Nazis. Black people have been trying to explain this forever. Look at how Germany does it: Speech and expression related to Nazism is heavily regulated and subjects you to imprisonment. Demonstrations/rallies are often banned. The Nazi party itself is banned. AfD is being monitored by intelligence agencies and might be banned in the future, etc. They do this defensively when groups demonstrate an "actively belligerent, aggressive stance" towards the democratic order. Because it's like pointing a gun at people in public - it's already violent even if you don't pull the trigger. Eventually America will have to learn this.
You can't kumbaya your way to peace with Nazis. Black people have been trying to explain this forever. Look at how Germany does it: Speech and expression related to Nazism is heavily regulated and subjects you to imprisonment. Demonstrations/rallies are often banned. The Nazi party itself is banned. AfD is being monitored by intelligence agencies and might be banned in the future, etc. They do this defensively when groups demonstrate an "actively belligerent, aggressive stance" towards the democratic order. Because it's like pointing a gun at people in public - it's already violent even if you don't pull the trigger. Eventually America will have to learn this.
Every country should take Germany's stance against Nazis.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...
- The German penal code prohibits publicly denying the Holocaust and disseminating Nazi propaganda, both off- and online. This includes sharing images such as swastikas, wearing an SS uniform and making statements in support of Hitler.
- It also places strict rules on how social media companies must moderate and report hate speech and threats. These hate-speech laws were tightened last year, after three far-right terror attacks in 2019 and early 2020 prompted German authorities to warn of increasing extremism.
But I think there is plenty of debate possible on free market vs. centrally managed market, tax rates, immigration policies, etc. that can be fact based and is with people who do have the same vision (a free prosperous society) but disagree on how we do it.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...
- The German penal code prohibits publicly denying the Holocaust and disseminating Nazi propaganda, both off- and online. This includes sharing images such as swastikas, wearing an SS uniform and making statements in support of Hitler.
- It also places strict rules on how social media companies must moderate and report hate speech and threats. These hate-speech laws were tightened last year, after three far-right terror attacks in 2019 and early 2020 prompted German authorities to warn of increasing extremism.
But I think there is plenty of debate possible on free market vs. centrally managed market, tax rates, immigration policies, etc. that can be fact based and is with people who do have the same vision (a free prosperous society) but disagree on how we do it.
I love this take, thank you.
In my reading, I came across the term "Mixed economy" which I think aligns with what you're saying. Nobody is arguing in good faith that socialism/communism would have 100% coverage of the economic system. There would be room for luxury goods to operate under roughly the same economic conditions. The key difference being that basic needs like food housing and Healthcare would operate under state control for the benefit of all citizens. We would have some vote in their operation via representatives, unlike now where we have 0 say in private operations unless we pay to play. And some people don't have the means to pay, so they don't get to play.
In my reading, I came across the term "Mixed economy" which I think aligns with what you're saying. Nobody is arguing in good faith that socialism/communism would have 100% coverage of the economic system. There would be room for luxury goods to operate under roughly the same economic conditions. The key difference being that basic needs like food housing and Healthcare would operate under state control for the benefit of all citizens. We would have some vote in their operation via representatives, unlike now where we have 0 say in private operations unless we pay to play. And some people don't have the means to pay, so they don't get to play.
Pretty much yeah, I wouldn't put as much in the state controlled basket as you but like that's a policy discussion—I don't think we have some fundamental disagreement that means we couldn't work together and be pragmatic. One of us doesn't have to "win" control of the government to make progress.
Agreed, we seem to both be operating with a common goal of materially improving people's lives.
I’ll just say thank GOD at this moment in time I’m not relying on Trump not to take away healthcare and housing from people he doesn’t like.
Yeah, this is ultimately why I don't love the idea of single payer. But honestly I'm (slowly) warming up to it as the fears of government controlling healthcare in the way you describe are starting to happen anyway. I guess we'll see how bad it gets and how successful government is at sticking their fingers in private healthcare.
Private insurance is no better.
Before the ACA, there were dozens of reasons for which you could be deemed uninsurable, not the least of which is that you had a "pre-existing condition" (i.e., you were unlikely to be profitable enough). North of 15% of the US population lacked health insurance as a result. Even after ACA's passage, we straddle 10% uninsured, rising above some years and falling below in others.
When we have regular, required medication like insulin costing tens or hundreds of times more here than anywhere else on the planet, being uninsured can be a particularly cruel, slow death sentence.
Still, the joke's on GP: he/she still is relying on Trump not to take away healthcare and housing from people he doesn't like (re: poor people, i.e., nearly everyone). The BBB guts medicaid and ACA subsidies, which will ultimately remove health insurance from millions either directly or pricing it out of reach, and his combination of tariffs and deportations of (often times not-so-)illegal immigrants make building more housing difficult and significantly more expensive.
Expect even harsher austerity measures and/or batshit insane policies the next time the Republican party wants to shake the tax cut for billionaires tree or perhaps even just for shits and giggles since many of the cruel policies are there to put the rabble in their place.
Before the ACA, there were dozens of reasons for which you could be deemed uninsurable, not the least of which is that you had a "pre-existing condition" (i.e., you were unlikely to be profitable enough). North of 15% of the US population lacked health insurance as a result. Even after ACA's passage, we straddle 10% uninsured, rising above some years and falling below in others.
When we have regular, required medication like insulin costing tens or hundreds of times more here than anywhere else on the planet, being uninsured can be a particularly cruel, slow death sentence.
Still, the joke's on GP: he/she still is relying on Trump not to take away healthcare and housing from people he doesn't like (re: poor people, i.e., nearly everyone). The BBB guts medicaid and ACA subsidies, which will ultimately remove health insurance from millions either directly or pricing it out of reach, and his combination of tariffs and deportations of (often times not-so-)illegal immigrants make building more housing difficult and significantly more expensive.
Expect even harsher austerity measures and/or batshit insane policies the next time the Republican party wants to shake the tax cut for billionaires tree or perhaps even just for shits and giggles since many of the cruel policies are there to put the rabble in their place.
It's crazy to me that many of the people who are so proud to be American don't seem to realize that they are actually at odds with the spirit of America. They latch onto superficial anti-gubbermint thinking while surrendering their rights to billionaires. Being an American is supposed to be about telling powerful people to go fuck themselves, standing up for inclusive equality and reckoning with our slights against what we claim to believe. It's supposed to be about modeling democratic ideals to show the world there's a better way. It's supposed to be about being so morally righteous that others come to their own conclusion that we're worthy of emulation, and not because we regime changed them. Somehow we let all of that get away from us.
Why would we allow the president to do that? The power of the purse rests in the hands of our elected representatives. Something to think about.
If you watch modern American politics, the President has vastly more power than he was ever meant to be, combined with a house and senate that follow his wishes to the T.
Why would we allow the president to do that? Because at some point in the last 300 years we decided it was a necessary power for him to get past some crisis, and no President ever relinquishes power.
Why would we allow the president to do that? Because at some point in the last 300 years we decided it was a necessary power for him to get past some crisis, and no President ever relinquishes power.
No disagreement from me. I just think that the argument that the state shouldn't offer Healthcare because the president could cancel it is interesting to think about. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that's how I interpreted it. As the other poster said, he's basically canceling it now anyway for millions of people so it seems to me that presidentual power is irrelevant to the concept of state run Healthcare. Sent from my bidet.
I kept it pretty vague intentionally because I was simply complaining about how dangerous that one particular thing would be right now. I'm undecided on how the overall healthcare issue should be attacked.
I just want people to be open to try things. One thing that this administration has proved is that you can actually make parts of the government move faster, for better or for worse. We stopped innovating on democratic ideals, and the world is starting to lose faith in us. I think we all feel that on some level.
Agreed, but change is very scary to many, many people. It's hard to convince them to try new things. It might be less frictional to simply explain how "actually new thing" is pretty much the same as "old broken thing".
With that being said, the major problem I have with pretty much all candidates is that they just campaign on an end goal, rather than a process. Yes, we all want to "tax the rich", but what does that look like in reality? Are we sending out wealth assessors? Are we requiring new reporting? Are we doing something else? (this is just an example that can be applied to just about any major political platform today)
With that being said, the major problem I have with pretty much all candidates is that they just campaign on an end goal, rather than a process. Yes, we all want to "tax the rich", but what does that look like in reality? Are we sending out wealth assessors? Are we requiring new reporting? Are we doing something else? (this is just an example that can be applied to just about any major political platform today)
> 59% of respondents (and 58% of Republicans) blame landlords and banks more than government regulation for the high cost of housing.
I know it's popular to blame landlords, but this isn't a serious take. Landlords are operating in a market of artificially constrained supply, so of course prices are going to rise! The issue, IMO, is on three groups: NIMBY homeowners, voting landlords, and local government officials because they all propose/support policies that make it harder to build homes in their locality.
Someone wanting even more government involvement in housing at this point would be quite surprising.
I know it's popular to blame landlords, but this isn't a serious take. Landlords are operating in a market of artificially constrained supply, so of course prices are going to rise! The issue, IMO, is on three groups: NIMBY homeowners, voting landlords, and local government officials because they all propose/support policies that make it harder to build homes in their locality.
Someone wanting even more government involvement in housing at this point would be quite surprising.
> Someone wanting even more government involvement in housing at this point would be quite surprising.
Zohran Mamdani supports a new Social Housing Development Authority. https://citylimits.org/proposed-state-social-housing-authori...
Zohran Mamdani supports a new Social Housing Development Authority. https://citylimits.org/proposed-state-social-housing-authori...
The problem with housing in much of the country, including NYC is it's just too hard to build, due to combination of local construction laws, zoning laws, various avenues of NIMBY holdup tactics (city council, lawsuits, studies, etc).
In NYC so much of the high-rise residential development is done in locations that are terrible commutes with 10 to 15 minute walks to the train... because there was no one there before to protest the zoning change. Meanwhile the buildings around the closest subway stops remain 4 story walk ups.
I don't see how the city getting more directly involved in social housing is going to help, as we already have NYCHA, which is run so poorly that the feds had to step in for oversight. The city just piles on regulation on top of regulation for buildings, but then doesn't really follow them themselves.
That Legionnaires' disease outbreak uptown was mostly city owned buildings that were in violation of city water tower inspection laws. Meanwhile some on city council have suggested tightening up the law to increase inspection cadence (cost) city wide, when again, the city isn't following its own law in the first place.
Another example - mandating $10k/elevator safety software upgrades after an elevator fatality due to elevator maintenance guy messing around with the elevator safety mechanisms (was like a safety patch to precent that particular override). Does anyone in their right mind think the city did these updates in city owned buildings?
In NYC so much of the high-rise residential development is done in locations that are terrible commutes with 10 to 15 minute walks to the train... because there was no one there before to protest the zoning change. Meanwhile the buildings around the closest subway stops remain 4 story walk ups.
I don't see how the city getting more directly involved in social housing is going to help, as we already have NYCHA, which is run so poorly that the feds had to step in for oversight. The city just piles on regulation on top of regulation for buildings, but then doesn't really follow them themselves.
That Legionnaires' disease outbreak uptown was mostly city owned buildings that were in violation of city water tower inspection laws. Meanwhile some on city council have suggested tightening up the law to increase inspection cadence (cost) city wide, when again, the city isn't following its own law in the first place.
Another example - mandating $10k/elevator safety software upgrades after an elevator fatality due to elevator maintenance guy messing around with the elevator safety mechanisms (was like a safety patch to precent that particular override). Does anyone in their right mind think the city did these updates in city owned buildings?
> The state-run public authority would act as an alternative to private sector development, which the bill’s sponsors say has failed to create enough affordable homes to keep up with the state’s growth, citing the current housing shortage, rising rents and surging homelessness
Hmm, that seems a bit contradictory and circular: government makes it hard to build --> market reacts to that with higher prices --> government blames private sector --> government decides public housing with a bunch of regulations needs to be built?
Obviously there are certain localities like NYC that probably require something like this due to limited physical space but the bill[0] is at the state level. It seems like it'd be better to focus on de-regulation rather than something like this state-wide.
0: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S8494
Hmm, that seems a bit contradictory and circular: government makes it hard to build --> market reacts to that with higher prices --> government blames private sector --> government decides public housing with a bunch of regulations needs to be built?
Obviously there are certain localities like NYC that probably require something like this due to limited physical space but the bill[0] is at the state level. It seems like it'd be better to focus on de-regulation rather than something like this state-wide.
0: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S8494
Only when your assumption is that the government wants to make it hard to build houses, but why would the government want that? That's the part that makes no sense.
The government does the things that organized voters care about. And the most organized voters are homeowners afraid of living next to someone poorer than they are, or a building taller than theirs. So they lobby the government, as they have for the last 100 years, to implement a raft of land used laws that make it all that impossible to do anything but sprawl on the edge of the city, or demolishing & evicting apartments and to build slightly taller apartment buildings.
Wherever you live, I guarantee the largest bylaw in your municipality is the one that is composed of the government listing the residential buildings you aren’t allowed to build on most of the land in the municipality.
Wherever you live, I guarantee the largest bylaw in your municipality is the one that is composed of the government listing the residential buildings you aren’t allowed to build on most of the land in the municipality.
And yet there's tons of building going on. It's true, you can't build everywhere, but there are a lot of places you can build.
They're also operating in an environment where the commercial loans they have on the buildings essentially prevent them from lowering the rent. The building is valued at a multiple of the monthly revenue. If they were to lower the rent to get a new tenant, the monthly revenue of the building would decrease, and the owner would have to give the bank additional collateral in the form of cash. So, they leave it empty, which prevents the building value from decreasing. And the mortgage payments are suspended while the building is empty with the payments and additional interest tacked onto the end of the mortgage.
This is specifically about commercial buildings in NYC and will vary for residential and other areas.
This is specifically about commercial buildings in NYC and will vary for residential and other areas.
What you're describing is a system thats producing bad outcomes while working as intended.
>> I know it's popular to blame landlords, but this isn't a serious take
Guys, I found the landlord.
Guys, I found the landlord.
Developers and landlords generally have a lot of influence over local government officials, so blaming them for that could be fair. But I doubt most of the people answering the polls have that second order effect in mind.
>I know it's popular to blame landlords
Depends, if a person owing 1 or 2 properties, probably correct.
If a large company with multiple units, yes 100% that companies fault.
Depends, if a person owing 1 or 2 properties, probably correct.
If a large company with multiple units, yes 100% that companies fault.
Individuals who own one or two properties are just as capable of exploiting scarcity for maximum rent as companies.
What’s important is whether you care about resolving the scarcity so that neither has the power to exploit it, or whether you’re OK with scarcity just so long as your preferred party is the one benefitting from it.
What’s important is whether you care about resolving the scarcity so that neither has the power to exploit it, or whether you’re OK with scarcity just so long as your preferred party is the one benefitting from it.
> 59% of respondents (and 58% of Republicans) blame landlords and banks more than government regulation for the high cost of housing.
I find this stat odd.
It runs counter to another set of data that exists, the rate of home ownership: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
Home ownership is a great indicator of "I will vote" and furthermore its an indicator of "I will vote to protect the price of my home"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/if-you-lived-here-you-...
So for as much as this data may be true, I'm fairly certain that it isnt an accurate measure of how people are going to vote.
I find this stat odd.
It runs counter to another set of data that exists, the rate of home ownership: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
Home ownership is a great indicator of "I will vote" and furthermore its an indicator of "I will vote to protect the price of my home"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/if-you-lived-here-you-...
So for as much as this data may be true, I'm fairly certain that it isnt an accurate measure of how people are going to vote.
Yup. A nation where the majority of the electorate our homeowners, benefitting financially when housing is scarce and expensive, and organizes politically to ensure housing stays scarce and expensive, yet consistently tells pollers that it’s caused by anything except their actions.
Sure, it’s popular among the shrinking pool of Democrats.
Democrats as a whole are polling at record low levels. 34% surveyed approve of the Democrats, 59% disapprove.
That’s not from a single poll, it’s an average of the most recent polls.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/rcp_aver...
Democrats as a whole are polling at record low levels. 34% surveyed approve of the Democrats, 59% disapprove.
That’s not from a single poll, it’s an average of the most recent polls.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/rcp_aver...
Is Jacobin a reliable source? As far as I know, while I wouldn't call it a rag, it is very ideological to the point you'd be better very careful taking anything from it for granted. It is interesting though, that's true too.
And well... As a Pole, it saddens me to see this. Mainly because it's clear that Americans don't know what socialism is, to conservatives, state existing is literally communism, to progressives, if a state has health care, it is socialism. I was reading a book recently - What Everyone Needs to know about China - and there was one sentence I remarked. Author naming Norway socialist country. In an otherwise reputable publisher.
Communism and socialism are evil ideologies, and never again. Words have their meanings, and this I fear will mangle it all up. After all, if communism is health care, it can't be that bad, right?
And well... As a Pole, it saddens me to see this. Mainly because it's clear that Americans don't know what socialism is, to conservatives, state existing is literally communism, to progressives, if a state has health care, it is socialism. I was reading a book recently - What Everyone Needs to know about China - and there was one sentence I remarked. Author naming Norway socialist country. In an otherwise reputable publisher.
Communism and socialism are evil ideologies, and never again. Words have their meanings, and this I fear will mangle it all up. After all, if communism is health care, it can't be that bad, right?
The questions/results:
https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/120...
I find this format (ranking) a bit confusing.
I read the article and the Wikipedia article about "Democratic Socialism" and I still can't quite understand what exactly this means, Marxist Democracy? Anti-Capitalism?
From the survey: "A democratic socialist elected official in your town or city, whose agenda is primarily focused on how to make life more affordable for working people in your community by bringing down the costs of housing, groceries, and electric bills."
So this is the definition of a "democratic socialist"? Doesn't every politician say they'll bring down costs and make things more affordable? The question being how? How is this elected official going to do that?
"Democratic socialists believe that the government should take a more active role to improve Americans' lives." -> Is this a survey or a sales pitch?
"What is your familiarity with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)? " -> 4% I am a DSA member, or personally know DSA members, 20% "familiar with the organization"
What would be an example of a successful country that where government is more or less based on these principles? Scandinavian countries? China?
Obviously(?) these trends are driven by social media?
"15% of Donald Trump voters prefer democratic socialism to capitalism. These voters tended to be younger and non-white." -> Does your average person even know what these mean?
I find this format (ranking) a bit confusing.
I read the article and the Wikipedia article about "Democratic Socialism" and I still can't quite understand what exactly this means, Marxist Democracy? Anti-Capitalism?
From the survey: "A democratic socialist elected official in your town or city, whose agenda is primarily focused on how to make life more affordable for working people in your community by bringing down the costs of housing, groceries, and electric bills."
So this is the definition of a "democratic socialist"? Doesn't every politician say they'll bring down costs and make things more affordable? The question being how? How is this elected official going to do that?
"Democratic socialists believe that the government should take a more active role to improve Americans' lives." -> Is this a survey or a sales pitch?
"What is your familiarity with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)? " -> 4% I am a DSA member, or personally know DSA members, 20% "familiar with the organization"
What would be an example of a successful country that where government is more or less based on these principles? Scandinavian countries? China?
Obviously(?) these trends are driven by social media?
"15% of Donald Trump voters prefer democratic socialism to capitalism. These voters tended to be younger and non-white." -> Does your average person even know what these mean?
[deleted]
Democratic Socialism has a long history, and is easy to understand in a wider political context
It is transforming society to socialism (a system which is based on needs and capabilities rather than ownership of private property) by using the available democratic institutions.
Easiest to understand in contrast to Revolutionary Socialism that advocates the complete overthrow of the existing institutions.
Scandinavian countries, yes, China no.
It is not hard to understand
It is transforming society to socialism (a system which is based on needs and capabilities rather than ownership of private property) by using the available democratic institutions.
Easiest to understand in contrast to Revolutionary Socialism that advocates the complete overthrow of the existing institutions.
Scandinavian countries, yes, China no.
It is not hard to understand
So the only difference is velocity to a maximized State? That's basically a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I do not understand.
Apologies for not being that familiar.
Why not like China? Because it got there via a revolution? But otherwise the same end goal just via democratic means?
What you're describing sounds like the USSR or China to me.
The survey didn't really discuss the idea of Revolutionary Socialism but I imagine that likely has some support as well.
If my tone sounds negative it's because I am negative. I support the state being more involved but all examples of pure socialism that I'm aware of end up as a total failure - because it is unworkable. In the US somehow healthcare is considered socialism but I mean "real" socialism (like the idea the grocery stores are owned by the state somehow being able to make food more affordable). The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model probably doesn't work for everyone either. I think the term "mixed-market capitalist" is more appropriate there. Maybe people are also confused vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Why not like China? Because it got there via a revolution? But otherwise the same end goal just via democratic means?
What you're describing sounds like the USSR or China to me.
The survey didn't really discuss the idea of Revolutionary Socialism but I imagine that likely has some support as well.
If my tone sounds negative it's because I am negative. I support the state being more involved but all examples of pure socialism that I'm aware of end up as a total failure - because it is unworkable. In the US somehow healthcare is considered socialism but I mean "real" socialism (like the idea the grocery stores are owned by the state somehow being able to make food more affordable). The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model probably doesn't work for everyone either. I think the term "mixed-market capitalist" is more appropriate there. Maybe people are also confused vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Revolutionary Socialists (e.g: USSR, China - both back in the day) and Democratic Socialists might seem the same from a distance. But the nature of violence is to lead to more violence, and both the USSR and China have great deals of state violence (as does the USA - I think it is the history of revolution, perhaps?)
Democratic socialists have to convince you. Not so much th Bolsheviks, they just make you.
> all examples of pure socialism that I'm aware of end up as a total failure
"Pure socialism" is a bit silly. How could there ever be such a thing? The Bolsheviks and the CCP were fascists to my way of thinking.
In Western Europe , France had a number of revolutions but recovered. The rest of them went the Democratic Socialist route.
Democratic Socialists, by necessity originally and these days as a positive policy, believe in a mixed economy.
Point is I do not think that Western Europe can be classed a "total failure" nor as "pure socialism".
> "real" socialism (like the idea the grocery stores are owned by the state
Yes. Mixed economies work better. It comes down to culture for a lot of places.
Democratic socialists have to convince you. Not so much th Bolsheviks, they just make you.
> all examples of pure socialism that I'm aware of end up as a total failure
"Pure socialism" is a bit silly. How could there ever be such a thing? The Bolsheviks and the CCP were fascists to my way of thinking.
In Western Europe , France had a number of revolutions but recovered. The rest of them went the Democratic Socialist route.
Democratic Socialists, by necessity originally and these days as a positive policy, believe in a mixed economy.
Point is I do not think that Western Europe can be classed a "total failure" nor as "pure socialism".
> "real" socialism (like the idea the grocery stores are owned by the state
Yes. Mixed economies work better. It comes down to culture for a lot of places.
It is very hard to understand how people who have been alive more than a couple of decades can believe that there is a system which can objectively determine everyone’s needs and capabilities.
Even if such a system was possible and was implemented, 30 seconds after it was implemented, it would be exploited such that favoured groups benefitted more than others.
Maybe it wouldn’t benefit the heirs of capital owners, but it would be the heirs of the socialist revolutionary Vanguard, or some future authoritarian who makes his way through the socialist hierarchy, who knows, but it would be somebody.
Even if such a system was possible and was implemented, 30 seconds after it was implemented, it would be exploited such that favoured groups benefitted more than others.
Maybe it wouldn’t benefit the heirs of capital owners, but it would be the heirs of the socialist revolutionary Vanguard, or some future authoritarian who makes his way through the socialist hierarchy, who knows, but it would be somebody.
> It is very hard to understand how people who have been alive more than a couple of decades can believe that there is a system which can objectively determine everyone’s needs and capabilities.
What is the relevance of that comment?
Objectively measuring "everyone’s needs and capabilities" is unnecessary in most cases (excluding a "total war" economy, or at times of famine, when it becomes very important, albeit imperfect) and a more free market economy does a very poor job for some goods (e.g. housing)
Free markets work well if participants are free to come and go, and have adequate information. Then price discovery in a Free Market is quite a phenomena. But when people cannot leave a market (e.g. in a famine) or when information is distributed unevenly Free Markets lead to all sorts of terrible outcomes.
Capitalism, without intervention and redistribution by the state (or some other powerful agency - there can be others) leads to concentrations of wealth and impoverishment of many. This is because the second dollar is easier than the first, and that idea scales.
What is the relevance of that comment?
Objectively measuring "everyone’s needs and capabilities" is unnecessary in most cases (excluding a "total war" economy, or at times of famine, when it becomes very important, albeit imperfect) and a more free market economy does a very poor job for some goods (e.g. housing)
Free markets work well if participants are free to come and go, and have adequate information. Then price discovery in a Free Market is quite a phenomena. But when people cannot leave a market (e.g. in a famine) or when information is distributed unevenly Free Markets lead to all sorts of terrible outcomes.
Capitalism, without intervention and redistribution by the state (or some other powerful agency - there can be others) leads to concentrations of wealth and impoverishment of many. This is because the second dollar is easier than the first, and that idea scales.
it's also increasingly the only politically viable alternative to fascism.
There's two baskets: one is a "centrally planned" economy led by government spending. One is "free market" economy led by market forces. You can't leave either basket empty or your economy crashes. The government spending keeps money moving during the busts. All we're arguing about how full each basket should be and which sectors of the economy go where. This shouldn't be some us vs them thing dammit, we all have the same vision for the economy and arguing over the details—because they are details—ought to be civil rather than territory grabbing and flag planting.