4 ms·

The questions/results: https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/12083310/dfp_dsafund_jacobin_toplines_0829.pdf https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-

by YZF 1y ago

The questions/results: https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/12083310/dfp_dsafund_jacobin_toplines_0829.pdf 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?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
worik 1y ago
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
- YZF 1y ago
  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 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
  - worik 1y ago
    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.
- appreciatorBus 1y ago
  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.

by YZF 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

worik 1y ago

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

YZF 1y ago
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 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
- worik 1y ago
  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.
appreciatorBus 1y ago
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.