53% of democrats have a positive view of socialism

[Craig234]

I will also check that. Gotta be fair, although the problem with History is that there may be one event that happens, and for that one event, thousands of perspectives. And nothing comes from just one event, so 7 events x thousands of perspectives per event = nobody will ever know for absolute certainty why what happened happened.

It's a solid debunking of werepossum's misrepresentation of the facts, covering McCarthy's 'names'
over time.

 

[JJ44]

A majority also had a positive view of capitalism and 85% view free enterprise positively. Not sure what to take from this other than that the democrats polled seem to look at a lot of things positively.

Exactly.
Also 99% of Americans, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, don't know what socialism is: it is the control by the state of all the means of production (communism is control of all property).

If most people take the incorrect but commonly held believe that socialism is state programmatic distribution of benefit, then as many Republicans like it as Democrats

 

[JJ44]

Could it be that they just have a positive view of the quality of life in evil socialist people's states like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and other Western European nations that don't have large percentages of the population living in poverty and without health insurance coverage (unlike, say, the United States)?

I grew up in Israel and it is more socialist than any of those countries! Universal health care for one thing.

 

[BigDH01]

Exactly.
Also 99% of Americans, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, don't know what socialism is: it is the control by the state of all the means of production (communism is control of all property).

If most people take the incorrect but commonly held believe that socialism is state programmatic distribution of benefit, then as many Republicans like it as Democrats

Technically, it's not the state. It's collective ownership by the workers over the means of production. Marxism is different than libertarian Socialism in its implementation, but both are forms of Socialism. Proudhon and Marx disagreed.

Also, Communism is technically stateless, although I don't really know how this can actually be realized in the real world as even democratic processes require some instrument to enact the result of those outcomes.

 

[Genx87]

Trying to poll views on "socialism" accurately is very difficult because it's a loaded word. I suspect MOST people who say they don't have a positive view of socialism are thinking of the Soviet Union, not public education.

I tend to agree with this post. And I bet most people who think of socialism in a good light think of the mixed economies of Europe.

This is where talking radio has completely failed. People really dont respond well to the word socialism like they did when we had a massive socialist state fighting a cold war. They should be calling what we have in DC the more appropriate phrase of "Big Govt". People respond to that in a more negative way.

 

[werepossum]

Exactly.
Also 99% of Americans, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, don't know what socialism is: it is the control by the state of all the means of production (communism is control of all property).

If most people take the incorrect but commonly held believe that socialism is state programmatic distribution of benefit, then as many Republicans like it as Democrats

Most states have realized that their direct control of the means of production is disastrous. Therefore Marxism is now usually expressed in a desire to control the production itself by seizing some of the production and redistributing it "fairly". This has three big benefits - it doesn't kill the economy by limiting decisions to those made by bureaucrats; it is axiomatic that a state must seize some portion of production (even if indirectly) to function as a state, so it limits debate as to how much should be seized and how rather than if any should be seized; and it allows the politicians to punish and reward groups (and even individuals) to achieve and remain in power.

Nonetheless you are correct in that polling on "socialism" is largely meaningless, not only because most people have vague ideas about it but also because some level of socialism is almost mandatory to a modern society. Probably only polls about particular programs, means of seizing production, methods of redistribution, and overall levels of socialism in very specific areas have any real meaning. Then you would find widespread variations of opinion as specific groups would oppose "socialism" but support some specific programs and vice versa.

 

[Steeplerot]

Technically, it's not the state. It's collective ownership by the workers over the means of production. Marxism is different than libertarian Socialism in its implementation, but both are forms of Socialism. Proudhon and Marx disagreed.

Also, Communism is technically stateless, although I don't really know how this can actually be realized in the real world as even democratic processes require some instrument to enact the result of those outcomes.

This is a very coherent definition, also pointing out that Marx is not the creator of Socialism, and the original big names of Socialism disagreed with Marx's idea of a large state.

Proudhorn, Bakunin both disagreed with Marx, it was the Bolsheviks 50 years later in 1917 who took Marx a few steps farther and created the "vanguard Party" which is just asking for corruption/tyrrany. Enter Stalin and the whole thing turned to a totalitarian nightmare, just as Bakunin told Marx it would turn into and got "uninvited" to the Communist's meetings for criticizing Marx. (2nd Internationale) back in the 1870s.

Libertarian Socialism a la Bakunin/Proudhorn is the democratic sustainable government of the future. They were ahead of their times though. With vastly improved communications and automation it will be possible soon, if not now.



Bakunin is remembered as a major figure in the history of (small a) anarchism/Socialism and an opponent of Marxism, especially of Marx's idea of dictatorship of the proletariat. He continues to be an influence on modern-day Libertarian Socialists.

If we taught any part of this history (which won us a lot of victories such as 8hr workdays) of Socialism besides the marxist-reactionary 20th century USSRofFail you guys would understood why modern (and even back in the 1800s!) day Socialists/Anarchists/Communists/Lefties/Even US Democrats (who are still marginally left) reject Marxism and the Russian Bolshevik thing as a whole, while still being leftists.

So much easier to rewrite history of the left into marxism for political gain. Educate yourselves and turn glenn beck off. He doesn't know shit about history. Life/history cannot be summed up in "common sense" catch-phrases.

The elephant in the center of the room is stalinist/maoist dictatorships. That give Socialism it's terrible name.

A lot do not know of the Russian Revoloution. The Bolsheviks and their ultra-right ideology of Marxism won, but Libertarian Socialists fought the Bolsheviks, but as it is easier to set up a authoritarian dictatorship then a cooperative democratic state in a craphole backwater state of Russia back then bolsheviks backstabbed their leftist "comrades" and sapped "all power to the soviets". Even Marx said socialism could not be realized in Russia back then. That is without at least Germany/USA/UK back then having a revolution also. (Anyone heard of Rosa Luxembourg here?)

The Libertarian Socialists were sent to the gulags or deported, The USSR was founded. A lot do not know this was Trotsky who did this to the Democratic supporting leftists, not even Lenin or Stalin had the cajones to slap the leftists international community in the face so early on in the Russian Revolution leading to worldwide leftist community rejecting the USSR by the early 20s.