General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
marble falls
(67,049 posts)... as I age, the more socialist I become.
brush
(60,620 posts)benefit the 99%, not the rich, and the socialism issue is not even a part of the conversation as it will be until the November election, and even further if Mamdani wins and becomes mayor of the nation's largest city.
It was totally avoidable, now rethugs have this huge issue to run on on social media, MSM media and cable media.
Totally avoidable.
KPN
(16,766 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 30, 2025, 02:29 AM - Edit history (1)
socialists and communists anyway. That’s their definition of Dems. We can either try to dodge the label by running as or running centrists, or we can fully embrace socialism as basic to government and what government is in its essence in the first place. Dodging labels gets us nowhere — never has and never will.
yellowdogintexas
(23,374 posts)Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
brush
(60,620 posts)KPN
(16,766 posts)
Redleg
(6,513 posts)since they have already said it.
LAS14
(15,274 posts)And I'm prettyt well off. But I'm absolutely sure about this. What I'm not sure about is the making it work part.
But taxing the rich enough for free buses and free child care??? Yeah!!!!!
marble falls
(67,049 posts)... of everyone's needs. The kind of socialism you describe seems to be communist socialism.
LAS14
(15,274 posts)
Emile
(36,013 posts)seeks to achieve social and economic equality through democratic means, often advocating for policies like universal healthcare, affordable housing, and a stronger social safety net, then I'm not afraid of being called a socialist.
I’m a Democrat but I am not afraid of the term. They call us socialists no matter what, for one. And I just don’t believe pure capitalism - or pure socialism for that matter - is good for the people. Democratic socialism describes a compromise.
The Wizard
(13,275 posts)it's socialism. We as a society have decided to pay for services that promote the general welfare as prescribed in our Constitution's preamble.
WSHazel
(534 posts)Socialist grab onto those issues to seem mainstream, but there are plenty in the center and on the Right in favor of covering significant portions of healthcare, and things like Universal Basic Income. Milton Friedman was in favor of cash grants to the poor instead of heavily restricted welfare payments. Capitalism is supposed to be about free and fair markets enabling individuals and groups to decide how they want to interact economically. Socialism and whatever Trumpism should be called ("corporatism"?) are about people surrendering their choices to someone else.
Where Socialism becomes more problematic is overly restricting areas like housing and employment, because that creates shortages by increasing the costs of providing housing or hiring people. There are plenty of free market proposals that would increase wages and reduce income inequality, but Republicans AND Democrats seem to both oppose those policies.
A big percentage of affordable housing developments turn into corruption-ridden dumps because the complexity of the laws around them chase off all but the most corrupt developers. Give people cash for housing and they will solve the housing issue more effectively than the government ever could.
Socialists also lose credibility when they equate capitalism with things like corporatism and artificially low taxes on the rich, which is not what capitalism is at all. The far Left has actually encouraged the Right to hijack the term "capitalism" by describing all of Trump's absurd, anti-free market policies as "capitalist", when they are anything but. Nothing about an economy running huge deficits so the rich can pay low taxes is capitalist.
angrychair
(10,897 posts)It is literally based on the premise of "feed the rich and starve the poor" that is capitalism in a nutshell.
WSHazel
(534 posts)What you described is not capitalism.
angrychair
(10,897 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 30, 2025, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)
That is exactly what it is in the context our collective real life experiences with it.
Capitalism is a "constant growth" model economic philosophy. Survival of the fittest. Its the "if you are not always reaching for that brass ring than do you even exist?" kind of philosophy. Where the love of money is the only love that matters?
It cannot be escaped that "greed is good" is the motto for capitalism. That is, in the end, eventually, an unsustainable economic model.
WSHazel
(534 posts)Money is just a mechanism for allocating resources within a society, and one humans have used for thousands of years because it is far superior to barter.
Capitalism enables people to choose what they want to do with their lives. Want to be a teacher? Be a teacher. Want to work less and not chase the brass ring, then don't. Capitalism allows for that decision. People price the marginal hour of their time in the labor market every day, which is why jobs that demand longer hours have to pay more on average. Are you against that?
All those European "socialist" countries are still fundamentally capitalist economies, just with a bigger safety net and more regulations. Picking the right level of safety net is difficult. The problem with a lot of their regulations is that they make hiring very expensive, which leads to high unemployment. There are not too many or too few regulations, just good and bad ones.
Capitalism is not perfect, but it is far better than any other economic system, all of which result in big, persistent shortages, social stratification, and ultimately autocracy. Capitalism also results in a much fairer and more dynamic society than any other system. You could argue that early capitalism in the west started in Venice in the late middle ages, or more likely Italy and the lower Rhine valley in the late Renaissance, and everywhere it took hold, every aspect of life improved dramatically. Capitalism didn't really get going until the 18th century, and within a century or so, most of Western Europe had some form of democracy. This economic model was so superior that Japan threw off its Feudal system in 1868 and within 35 years was one of the wealthiest, most powerful countries on the planet.
95 or 98% or pick your big number, of all human innovation has occurred under capitalism. While wealth inequality remains a sticky, and solvable, problem, our overall quality of life is unimaginable by those who lived just 100 years ago.
OldBaldy1701E
(8,413 posts)My life is proof that this entire sentence is a lie and misleading. If one does not get out there and work their assess off to make someone else richer (unless one is already wealthy), then they cannot do anything. Capitalism has removed any ability to live other than working in and for the machine. You want to be an actor or something that is not focused on making as much money as you can before someone else does it? Good fucking luck. (One of may favorite situations in recent years is the fact that I was always harangued for being a starving actor because it is a struggle just to find work that pays you enough to survive. I always heard, "But when are you going to get a real job?" Then, we got the whole 'unpaid intern' crap from the corporations. So, I guess it is okay to work yourself to death for a corporation that won't pay you anything, but it is stupid to work as an actor that won't pay you enough. Got it.) You want to do anything other than feed their greed machine, you are on your own and if you cannot find a niche or some other way that allows your convictions as well as your ability to survive in this economy, then you are done.
There should not be homelessness. There should not be destitution. There should not be an absence of art or anything just because it is not 'profitable'. Yet, we keep on allowing it to happen to our own citizens, and we still expect them to toe the greed line of 'feed the machine' or be left out in the cold.
'Capitalism' is not responsible for everything you mention. Freedom of choice is, and that has nothing to do with capitalism. Our governmental model was not created for capitalism. But, it sure was subverted for it really quickly once we hit the industrial revolution. Also, the 'quality of life' you mention that you say owes itself to capitalism, well, I bet there are more than a few struggling families, as well as homeless and destitute, out there who would find that pretty funny.
More than a few.
WSHazel
(534 posts)I disagree with most of it, but those are good thoughts.
Freedom of choice is capitalism. The three legs of the classical liberalism stool are democracy, Rule of Law, and capitalism. You can't have one of those without the other two. Capitalism is freedom of choice for how you will live your work life. It doesn't guarantee outcomes, but it does provide options.
For about 1200 years, from 300 AD, when Emperor Constantine imposed a caste system on the Roman Empire, to about 1500, when the renaissance reached northern Europe, most of humanity in the West lived as virtual property, with no agency over any part of their lives. Then the early sprouts of capitalism started to take hold in the lower Rhine, setting off the Reformation, early forms of democracy, and taking the first major shots at the brutal and barbaric Feudal system. Capitalism gave democracy and individual rights the power to stand up to embedded Feudal systems that had lasted for over 1,000 years. As the West rapidly evolved from a backwater of the world into global powers, other countries such as Japan adopted similar policies, with incredible success. Japan overthrew a brutal Shogunate that had ruled for 250 years, and transformed a Feudal system that dated back over 2,000 years, and became a world power within 40 years as a result. Even communist China finally acknowledged under Deng that their system didn't work.
The quality of life in countries that have some kind of capitalist economy is much higher than it is in countries that don't. As importantly, liberal societies win.
Your complaints about income inequality are valid, but those are also the easiest to solve. Just raise taxes. I would actually do it in coordination with the other developed countries to make jurisdiction shopping more difficult, but raising taxes on the rich is a pretty simple solution that works within a wide range. I would return to the Bush Sr./Clinton tax rates of the 90's. Taxes were high in the 90's, but the economy was very strong and the government ran a budget surplus. Art and culture were flourishing, the world was at peace, and median incomes were rising quickly. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
OldBaldy1701E
(8,413 posts)Not that I saw. 'Art' had been all but removed as a career unless you were able to make money at it. Only the top one percent of performers were able to make anything approaching real money. The rest were barely able to scrape along and often had to work themselves to early burnout from three jobs just to be able to live in a place like New York, or Los Angeles, which, thanks to all the 'hype', became pretty much the only places where one might have a shot. Thanks to the changes that the greedy production houses had forced into Hollywood, one had to have money just to start one's career in any capacity. Even then, it was a complete crap shoot because one could be an amazing actor, but said actor does not look like Fabio. So, they cast the one that looks like Fabio because that face will sell more in the short term than the good actor would in the long run. Great.
Culture was a complete descent into fad-ism. Again, if it was not profitable and flashy, it was all but ignored. Reports of medical breakthroughs that would have been good to know about were relegated to the most backwater pages and late night news sources because they were too busy scrambling to make sure their bottom line was going up. News programs that used to be considered a public service had to suddenly start competing with other programs or lose their slots. How many local and regional news programs have we lost since 1980 because they were forced to either act like Jerry Springer or get canned?
Bottom line: capitalism is fine as an individual, philosophical choice.
As a societal model, it is too easily corrupted and usurped. It breeds imbalance and allows injustice in the name of 'prosperity', even as that prosperity is purposely directed to, and enjoyed by, fewer and fewer of the population. It allows a two-faced representation in that figures can be easily played around with to make them look presentable, which allows for a dismissal of the reality of the situation as it pertains to the 'regular' folks. And mostly, it allows a little green piece of paper to rule our lives at the expense of our humanity.
Historically, it may have had its usefulness.
Today, it is destroying our lives in the name of greed.
electric_blue68
(22,447 posts)Probably was even into my late 30's that I started learning about them.
leftstreet
(36,868 posts)
-misanthroptimist
(1,388 posts)So often these days it means, "Anything I don't like" which in turn means, "Anything that helps poor people."
Strange times.
Lonestarblue
(12,814 posts)The Merriam-Webster definition is “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
True socialism calls for a worker collective or the government to own all means of production and control what gets produced. Obviously the term has been misused deliberately by Republicans for decades to paint Democrats as anti-free market capitalism and anti-wealth (laughable). The closest Mamdani comes to true socialism is his notion that the city should own grocery stores to buy at wholesale prices to lower food costs. He is not calling for the city to own and control all grocery stores in New York.
It’s my belief that if Mamdani wins the election, he will be forced to moderate his ideas somewhat. Few cities have the revenue to provide free bus service, for example. But Mamdani is a threat because he has ideas to benefit average people, and both establishment Democrats and Republicans are trying to derail him because they want the same old politics that have worked for each party in the past. For Republicans, that is racial hatred, claims of uncontrolled immigration of criminal black and brown people, and stoking fear that minorities are taking the country from white people. For Democrats, that is always being the gentlemanly civil party using 50 words (or more) to describe a policy when 20 simple, targeted ones would do. Younger Democrats are changing this dynamic, but the party leaders are stuck on what worked for Obama almost 20 years ago. Younger voters have moved on.
Heidi
(58,356 posts)✊🏼
SonOfNebanaube
(42 posts)speak easy
(11,989 posts)in the late 1940s was socialism by any definition of the term.
ZDU
(582 posts)Highways and gasoline plus so much more are heavily subsidized in favor of the private automobile at the expense of transit.
https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/knowledge-center/the-congestion-con-how-more-lanes-and-more-money-equals-more-traffic/
-misanthroptimist
(1,388 posts)
Mike Nelson
(10,664 posts)
Autumn
(48,176 posts)
SSJVegeta
(1,153 posts)...if one must insist on giving me labels. But labels or not:
Im a person who thinks that policies helping the poor and working class by highlighting the responsibilities of the rich, are the best policies. If one must call those "socialist" so be it. But at the end of the day, none of those labels matter. The only thing that matters is whether we help our struggling, starving and exploited community members and stave off the scourge of hatred and bigotry..
SSJVegeta
(1,153 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 29, 2025, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)
Democrat is a party that has historically included both Socialists and white supremacists. TBH being a Democrat is a bit too broad to mean a whole lot.
Heidi
(58,356 posts)Where’s the OP?
In It to Win It
(11,123 posts)haele
(14,409 posts)Nothing wrong at all with a mix of Socialism and Capitalism; even Adam Smith of "Free Market/Wealth of Nations" fame indicated that a government's role was to ensure there would be a fair and free Market and that everyone could have chance to participate in it.
Government also has a role to ensure the welfare of the people to reduce crime, as since the Dawn of Civilization (any civilization), it was understood that the larger the wealth gap in groups of people, the greater the increase of criminal activity amongst those groups.
An increase in poverty and crime is just another risk greedy and selfish assholes take to be able to bully and grab more resources for themselves under the guise of "working harder".
AStern
(456 posts)that's how far to the right the US has gone. Whether some want to admit it or not.
haele
(14,409 posts)Trashing is a purity test, a totally useless practice for those who aren't true believers to begin with.
Don't mind criticism, pointing out where a shortcoming is, even if it's sarcastic or hyperbolic. (And I can be accused of hyperbole)
emulatorloo
(46,013 posts)AStern
(456 posts)It's really gross.
emulatorloo
(46,013 posts)The MAGA’s are saying insane things, like wanting to deport him!
But it seems to me the majority of DU’ers are positive about Mamdani and the campaign he ran.
I see some DU’ers suggesting that a NYC dem primary can’t necessarily be generalized as a nationwide trend. But that’s not negativity towards Mamdani AFAIK. It is just noting that NYC is not Omaha etc.
AStern
(456 posts)I'd share links but trashed them already.
emulatorloo
(46,013 posts)
regnaD kciN
(27,189 posts)…than anywhere else I frequent on social media. (To be fair, I don’t visit X, Truth Social, 4chan, or Freeperville.)
Emile
(36,013 posts)in check.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,395 posts)Scrivener7
(56,493 posts)
David__77
(24,310 posts)
walkingman
(9,579 posts)system gets worse every day.
gab13by13
(28,890 posts)Dylan Ratigan was my favorite, he started going across the country exposing capitalism for what it really was, crony capitalism.
The crony capitalists who own MSNBC fired him and I still remember the day he said goodbye, in tears.
I can make a case that Krasnov is the real Socialist/Communist.
Didn't he tell Walmart what to charge for its goods, tell them to eat his tariffs? He really wants the fossil fuel industry to keep gas prices down, not so much to slow inflation but to weaken the dollar and strengthen crypto.
Included in the Big Ugly Death bill are cuts to wind and solar industries that will bankrupt them or prevent new start ups, while in the bill are subsidies for coal.
There is no such thing as the invisible hand of the market today.
demmiblue
(38,562 posts)
purple_haze
(401 posts)hamsterjill
(16,120 posts)The rest is all just details.
Nanjeanne
(6,294 posts)
Polybius
(20,550 posts)This is Democratic Underground. Socialist Underground is that way.
Response to Polybius (Reply #25)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Celerity
(50,959 posts)Our Democratic Party advocates for many policies that fall under one form or another of the vast and broad umbrella that is often labelled as 'socialism' (especially things found in 'social democracy'), and has tens of millions of voters who support those policies.
Oneironaut
(6,073 posts)- Public roads and the government funding those roads
- Public transportation
- Government maintenance of city sidewalks and water / sewer systems
- Welfare
- Food Stamps
- Public parks and beautification
- Rent assistance
- Regulation against businesses
- Corporate social responsibility
- Rich people paying their fair share
- public education / subsidized education
“And more!” 
emulatorloo
(46,013 posts) Heidi
(58,356 posts)Oneironaut
(6,073 posts)
Wonder Why
(5,968 posts)Can you further elaborate on why being in favor of those things means that one must be a Socialist? I'm confused about your statement.
Ocelot II
(126,099 posts)Socialism is an economic system in which the government controls the means of production and distribution. The existence of publicly-funded services and utilities does not make a society socialist unless the government also owns the entities that produce all of those services and utilities. The European countries that are touted as socialist, particularly Scandinavia, are actually examples of highly-regulated capitalism (and some of them are also monarchies). There are private corporations; people own their own businesses; and taxes on corporations and individuals are high enough to pay for social services. Even the Norwegian oil production company, Equinor, is only partially owned by the government, which uses profits from that ownership to fund social programs; the rest of the stock is owned privately. If we are going to promote "socialism" we need to understand what it really is and what it really is not; I think the preferred model is actually Scandinavian-style regulated capitalism.
Oneironaut
(6,073 posts)I believe the better term for these countries would be “social democracies.”
It’s plausible the OP could separate those ideas from “Socialism” in its true sense.
Here is what I mean when I call those policies “socialist:” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States
Emile
(36,013 posts)
Iggo
(49,007 posts) AStern
(456 posts)Please define the stark differences.
TacosUberAlles
(88 posts)And the guy in my avatar is a Socialist too & that's why I chose it XD
I'm actually a Christian Socialist if we're going to be exact with hard Eco-Socialist leanings.
Now everyone is off to Google to see what that is lol
I hope you're all having an amazing Sunday ❤
1WorldHope
(1,452 posts)Is DU a platform for the democratic party, or is it about Democracy itself?
Because, if it can't be both, the numbers on this sight will drop and we will have successfully divided our selves again. I may post this as a post so on its own so I can get a better feeling for what DU members think.
Heidi
(58,356 posts)It’s impolite to squat and plonk a passive-aggressive turd into the DU punch bowl. Do tell us more. Until you do, I’m sorting you into the “Bless your heart” column.
ananda
(32,608 posts)I've always been a liberal leftie.
Jirel
(2,351 posts)Makes me think of pappy Simpson shaking his fist at the sky.
🩵🩵🩵
Ping Tung
(3,068 posts)So what?
patphil
(8,087 posts)We have a Constitutional Democratic Republic in the United States, and there are many examples of socialism within that governmental framework.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are just a few of these examples.
Another example is our national park system.
Even public schools, utilities, and public owned infrastructure can be defined as socialistic.
This is simply our government serving the people who elected them, and paid taxes to allow that government to operate in a manner consistent with the will of the people.
Socialism is very beneficial in this respect. It represents a concern for the overall welfare of the people who make up the nation.
The government doesn't have to own everything to be socialist. The balance of government owned and operated vs private enterprise is the key to our healthy, responsible economic system.
bif
(25,922 posts) 
thought crime
(509 posts)Bernie, AOC and Mamdani urge a focus on economic change as being fundamental to progress. New Deal Democrats, Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists can work for similar change in the short run, even if ultimate goals vary somewhat. FDR's Second Bill of Rights, every great speech by Bernie and AOC, and Zohran Mamdani's current campaign all point in the same direction.
Arazi
(8,173 posts)We lost a lot of good posters in the past arguing over that 😞
LetMyPeopleVote
(166,528 posts)Troth_Aint_Truth
(3 posts)I'm for government support and regulation for finance, health care, market fairness, equal opportunity, education, consumer rights, labor unions, crime and innumerable aspects of life. Without it, individuals are powerless when dealing with corruption, racism, greed and corporations whose duty is to squeeze out the highest profit. If you want to call that socialism do so. Do you call it socialism when corporations and billionaires pay no tax, DOGE the watchdog agencies and buy all three branches of government? Or is it fascism? And why is that ok? Which side are YOU on?
I vote for Democrats, not democratic socialists. YMMV, do what you like, to each their own, you be you, etc...
1WorldHope
(1,452 posts)Would you not vote, or vote for the Republican?
WhiskeyGrinder
(25,341 posts)There are plenty of Democrats who have been endorsed by Democratic Socialist orgs, of course, as well as Democrats who describe themselves as Democratic Socialists.
niyad
(125,311 posts)
Dan
(4,834 posts)Celerity
(50,959 posts)a Labour Party member in the UK).
SocialDemocrat61
(5,206 posts)Is that a democrat who like to go to parties?
Celerity
(50,959 posts)The Nordics all have very robust, vibrant, AND also highly regulated capitalist economies that work synergistically with expansive social welfare state sectors to provide some the absolute highest standards of living on the planet.
SocialDemocrat61
(5,206 posts)😉
fujiyamasan
(485 posts)More democrats will be forced to answer if the DSA and similar groups gain further prominence within the party.
Maybe at some point in the future “socialism” will be accepted as a mainstream ideology, where no one bats an eye. For now and in the near future, I’m skeptical of the political dividends the use of that word nets.
Aside from not appealing to much of middle America, many Latinos and Asians (growing in terms of demographics) fled communist or other authoritarian countries, and will not vote for self proclaimed socialists. By the time you’re explaining democratic socialism, you’ve already lost half the battle and have wasted time defending a word, rather than making the case that you’re simply the better candidate on say small businesses, education and healthcare (a few examples of issues that matter to these groups).
mike_c
(36,627 posts)I'm very much a Social Democrat. Socialist first, Democrat second. Socialism is a philosophy of government, but the Democratic Party is just one of the several flavors of vulture capitalism in the U.S.
B.See
(5,908 posts)TRADITIONALLY, it was a term used as a pejorative by Republicans and anti-leftist-progressive ideologues,
along with "commie (pinko) scum" etc. - as go-tos readily deployed against ANY liberal who gained a notable following
not only to discredit and delegitimize the individual, but also because they knew the terms would cause dissention and divide among liberals, esp those wary of the implied associations.
Curiously enough, however, MAGA seems to embrace "Nazi," "fascists" (and garbage bags, I've read) with a kind of zeal.
Nanjeanne
(6,294 posts)early letters to Coretta King he wrote:
Or . . . In 1961, speaking at the Negro American Labor Council, King had already proclaimed, “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.”
B.See
(5,908 posts)the tendency and often deliberate effort to place the emphasis more on the "socialist" aspect
for the purpose of denigrating someone who (like King, and, dare I say, perhaps a few of us)
may have an appreciation for the positive elements of socialism and capitalism alike.
The detractors, however, are not inclined to acknowledge this because they're too busy invoking the boogie-man under every bed.
AntiFascist
(13,538 posts)it's an idiotic MAGA talking point to label all leftist Democrats as Marxists. I know the OP is not about Marxism specifically, but I think that is really the elephant in the room when it comes to Mamdani's support.
snot
(11,207 posts)you're at least a bit of a socialist.
There are a lot of goods and services that can be done much more efficiently using a socialist approach.
There have been many deliberate efforts to confuse socialism and communism with political tyranny; but they are primarily economic systems. You can have tyrannical socialism or communism or capitalism, or you can have democratic socialism or communism or capitalism.
I hope people are starting to wise up about all this.
Imho, things we're better off socializing at least in part (if they aren't already) probably include infrastructure, utilities, and services that require big investments and/or are more or less essential basics, e.g. roads & bridges, water, health care, primary & secondary education, & space exploration, among others.
choie
(5,846 posts)Why you felt the need to proclaim that, I don't know. But I have the feeling it has something to do with Zohran Mamdani - WHO WON OUR PRIMARY and is now the DEMOCRATIC nominee for mayor of NYC. Got it?
Emile
(36,013 posts)BlueTsunami2018
(4,500 posts)Now what?
jcmaine72
(1,818 posts)What now? When it's expedient to do so, we'll get blamed for whatever the party's shortcomings are in their entirety. Conversely, when people like Zohran Mamdani or AOC shine and make the party look hip and in touch with the average American, we'll get the obligatory pat on the head....until the next time we get kicked to the curb. Wash, rinse, repeat.
bob4460
(339 posts)Cirsium
(2,750 posts)Socialist Jack London
excerpt:
It was the same everywhere, crime and betrayal, betrayal and crime--men who were alive, but who were neither clean nor noble, men who were clean and noble, but who were not alive. Then there was a great, hopeless mass, neither noble nor alive, but merely clean. It did not sin positively nor deliberately; but it did sin passively and ignorantly by acquiescing in the current immorality and profiting by it. Had it been noble and alive it would not have been ignorant, and it would have refused to share in the profits of betrayal and crime.
I discovered that I did not like to live on the parlour floor of society. Intellectually I was as bored. Morally and spiritually I was sickened. I remembered my intellectuals and idealists, my unfrocked preachers, broken professors, and clean-minded, class-conscious working-men. I remembered my days and nights of sunshine and starshine, where life was all a wild sweet wonder, a spiritual paradise of unselfish adventure and ethical romance. And I saw before me, ever blazing and burning, the Holy Grail.
So I went back to the working-class, in which I had been born and where I belonged. I care no longer to climb. The imposing edifice of society above my head holds no delights for me. It is the foundation of the edifice that interests me. There I am content to labour, crowbar in hand, shoulder to shoulder with intellectuals, idealists, and class-conscious working-men, getting a solid pry now and again and setting the whole edifice rocking. Some day, when we get a few more hands and crowbars to work, we'll topple it over, along with all its rotten life and unburied dead, its monstrous selfishness and sodden materialism. Then we'll cleanse the cellar and build a new habitation for mankind, in which there will be no parlour floor, in which all the rooms will be bright and airy, and where the air that is breathed will be clean, noble, and alive.
Such is my outlook. I look forward to a time when man shall progress upon something worthier and higher than his stomach, when there will be a finer incentive to impel men to action than the incentive of to-day, which is the incentive of the stomach. I retain my belief in the nobility and excellence of the human. I believe that spiritual sweetness and unselfishness will conquer the gross gluttony of to-day. And last of all, my faith is in the working-class. As some Frenchman has said, "The stairway of time is ever echoing with the wooden shoe going up, the polished boot descending."
https://www.online-literature.com/london/revolution/13/
H2O Man
(77,383 posts)Stay pure!
vanessa_ca
(302 posts)
AZProgressive
(29,699 posts)I don't belong to any other party but I do think Democratic Socialists have terrific policy proposals to address issues in cities. Even Democrats tend to gentrify with unaffordable luxury condos -- No, we need policies to address rising costs of rents, lack of affordable housing, and Mamdani wants to address high costs at grocery stores as well.
Luckily Democratic Socialists are on the Democratic primary ballot so even if they are DSA I'm still voting for a Democrat.
Torchlight
(5,147 posts)and avoid division by supporting them when/if my guy doesn't get it. I think that makes me a just a plain old Democrat, but Statler and Waldorf are always lurking around the corner...
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,395 posts)Somehow I doubt it. They're already starting to badmouth Zohran the way they badmouth Bernie!!
Torchlight
(5,147 posts)I think he'll grab the vast majority of Democratic voters. Now's a great time to build on unity rather than exploiting manufactured divisions.
Heidi
(58,356 posts)Though it certainly was not your intention to help me discover many DUers who share my world view, you’ve accidentally done a great service. Sorry/not sorry I can’t give you the degree of affirmation you sought, but it’s *something*.
baddie
(23 posts)That's Socialism. Conflating Communism with Socialism is a cheap trick of some of these Capitalists.
Jacson6
(1,437 posts)Socialism means that the State owns the means of production and land.
DEMOCRATIC Socialism. I heard him describe himself this way with my own two ears. Like in Scandinavia. IKEA is a Swedish company. Capitalism + a robust Socialist policy = great standard of living.
Celerity
(50,959 posts)We are social democratic (ie the Nordic Model) nation states.
The Nordic Model is NOT democratic socialism, which would entail state ownership of the means of production.
Chemical Bill
(2,846 posts)is the sole arbiter of the definition of socialism.
Many of us define socialism as people joining forces and contributing to the common good.
Are you against this, or do you call it by a different name?
Jacson6
(1,437 posts)any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Response to Jacson6 (Reply #128)
Chemical Bill This message was self-deleted by its author.
Chemical Bill
(2,846 posts)I was bad mouthing your dictionary, but it agreed with me that governmental ownership is not a prerequisite to meet the definition of socialism.
Emile
(36,013 posts)that out!
mcar
(44,945 posts)I earned the benefits. That’s not socialism.
Response to mcar (Reply #119)
Emile This message was self-deleted by its author.
Emile
(36,013 posts)
obamanut2012
(28,652 posts)markpkessinger
(8,809 posts)Blue Full Moon
(2,466 posts)JanMichael
(25,668 posts)LudwigPastorius
(12,973 posts)
words.... are we talking political party, economic structure, or?? one can be a Democrat and believe is socialistic ideas/goals....
https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/platform
"The Socialist Party stands for the complete abolition of every form of exploitation, whether based on social class, gender, race/ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.
We are committed to the overthrow of capitalism and transformation of capitalist society through revolutionary action. In its place, we support the creation of a socialist society based on equality, compassion, empathy, and respect. Socialism will establish a new economic, social, and political order in which the working class will assume democratic control over the means of production.
As we pursue a socialist transformation of society, we offer a platform of radical demands to the existing, capitalist system. Although these demands are not the embodiment of socialism, the fight for them will advance working class interests by demonstrating the inherent limitations and injustice of the capitalist system. As we build our party and participate in larger movements, this platform illustrates a collective list of demands to organize around and expresses our desire to challenge capitalism in all facets of life." and on and on....
https://www.dsausa.org/
"The Democratic Socialists of America is the largest socialist organization in the United States, with over 80,000 members and chapters in all 50 states. We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few."
......one can be a Democrat and a Capitalist.....
https://www.americancapitalistparty.org/
"The birth of free-market capitalism offered the first hope of economic prosperity for all mankind.
The inventor who lit our homes with electricity banished the darkness.
The trailblazer who built the first airplane gave humanity wings to soar.
The scientist who unlocked the atom unleashed energy that powers our world.
These innovators laid the groundwork for the world we live in.
We seek to forge a new political movement grounded in this idea—a party that embodies the spirit of those who overcome hardship to shape our world.
We envision a society where free minds collaborate, where innovation thrives without oppressive limits, and where we create a future filled with wonder.
Discover a community of people who dare to question, to challenge, and to travel beyond known horizons.
If you are tired of the politics of envy and fear, you are not alone."
it is all verbiage at this point....
Me? I am a registered Democrat, and I believe in a "Worker owned Economy"
Duncan Grant
(8,757 posts)
GoodRaisin
(10,349 posts)I am further left economically than Bernie Sanders. Maybe I’m a socialist.