🐱 What Do Socialists Actually Believe?

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
CatParty

No major US poll has asked if respondents identify as socialist, much less what they actually think. A new survey finds that socialists aren’t just more pro-redistribution and class-conscious than liberals — they’re also far less racist and xenophobic.


Over the past few years, there has been a delugeof popular accounts announcing that many Americans, especially young Americans, are not only fed up with capitalism but also broadly supportive of the once feared S-word: socialism. According to a 2021 Fortune/SurveyMonkey poll, 42 percent of Americans have a positive perception of socialism, jumping to 55 percent among Americans aged eighteen to thirty-four. Concretely, this shift in popular support has manifested in the election of multiple self-described socialists to important local, state, and national political offices; the exponential growth of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA); and increasing social movement activism and labor organizing.

However, it is one thing to have a positive perception of socialism and quite another to make the jump to identifying as a socialist. If DSA’s membership numbers are any indication (growing from around 7,000 in 2016 to nearly 100,000 in 2021), it is likely that socialist identification has increased in the United States. Unfortunately, no contemporary major survey of Americans actually bothers to ask respondents if they identify as socialist — much less what socialist-identifying Americans actually think. Instead, American surveys typically stick to the liberal-conservative, two-dimensional scale of political ideology. Are you “very liberal” or “somewhat conservative”? This, it is alleged, encompasses all meaningful ideological variation among Americans.

There are many reasons to be skeptical of relying on the liberal-conservative scale. First, despite the well-worn narrative that Americans are becoming more ideologically polarized, the empirical findings on polarization are, at best, mixed. I imagine that the reader would be surprised to discover that a majority of Republicans, despite their supposed conservatism, support stricter gun laws, believe that income inequality in the United States is too high, favor increases in the minimum wage, and believe that “the government in Washington ought to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job.” Supermajorities of Americans — and I’ve always thought of this as the best-kept secret in the social sciences — support a broadly redistributive political agenda, far further to the left than even the most liberal Democratic politician would deign to consider implementing.

Second, once firmly associated with social welfare policies, American liberalism has, since the 1970s, and accelerating with the “third-way” liberalism of the Clinton administration, been increasingly associated with the “postmaterialist” social concerns of affluent, primarily white middle-class voters rather than the economic concerns of working-class Americans and the racial equity concerns of Americans of color.

Since I consider the conventional political ideology scale used in US surveys severely lacking, and with a more elementary curiosity concerning the attitudes and beliefs of American socialists, I surveyed roughly one thousand Americans in the fall of 2021.

I found that, compared to non-socialist Americans, Americans who identify as socialist are consistently more pro-redistribution, more disdainful of the rich and big business, and less likely to be ideologically racist or hold anti-immigrant sentiments. Perhaps more importantly, those who identified as socialist were similarly distinct from those who identified as liberal but not socialist. American socialists are more pro-redistribution, more class-conscious, and less racist than American liberals.

A selection of the results from the survey are presented below (see the full results here). The points represent the average response value — controlling for income, gender, education, age, and race. (The original sample is nationally representative with regard to age, race, and gender, and rake weighting was used to make the sample nationally representative with regard to educational attainment and partisanship.) For each predicted attitude, I present results comparing socialists with all non-socialist respondents as well as a separate model comparing socialists with non-socialist liberals.

2F6BB491-F62A-4B10-A547-4BCE463F6167.jpeg



As the models show, socialists are much more likely to support a robust welfare state and reductions in economic inequality compared to Americans as a whole, as well as to American liberals. Similarly, socialist identifiers rate the rich and big business much lower on a feeling thermometer (where higher values on a 0-to-100-point scale indicate more favorable attitudes) than Americans as a whole, as well as non-socialist liberals — who, it turns out, hold almost identical attitudes toward rich people and big business as non-socialists as a whole.

I doubt these results will surprise socialist or non-socialist readers. Of course socialists prefer state-led redistribution for the benefit of the working class. Of course socialists are more disdainful of the rich and big business. The liberal reader, though, will likely be surprised by the following:

BFD114C3-F8BB-4E29-BCD7-92530C7B4C28.png



Socialists are less racially resentful (racial resentment is a measure of ideological racism commonly used in American public opinion research) than American liberals. Not only that, but those who identify as socialist are also less likely to perceive immigrants as “tak[ing] jobs away from people already here” than Americans as a whole, and — you guessed it — American liberals, too.

These results are important for a number of reasons. At the most basic level, for the first time that I am aware, we have concrete information — at the level of mass opinion — about what contemporary American socialists actually believe. These results also illustrate that US socialists differ substantively from US liberals in expected and, perhaps, unexpected ways. Despite the typical liberal-professed trope that socialists have a “race problem” — allegedly ignoring racial inequalities to focus exclusively on more important class inequalities — American socialists, at least at an ideological level, hold less racist attitudes than that supposed bastion of racial progressivism, the American liberal. Clearly, the draw of socialist identification is not unidimensionally centered on issues of class. If socialist identification truly is growing — and only repeated studies like the one outlined here can determine if this is in fact the case — these results may portend a serious change in American politics.
 
despite having different politics i like jacobin as a publication, they publish good writers and are honest about the draw backs and failings of the american left while not being afraid to be critical of figures like sanders/AOC. it’s not total orange man bad shit, low bar i know.
 
TL;DR: You owe them for simply existing.
 
The common internet socialist is a a soycuck loser, everyone knows that national socialism is the way to go. (We can have some pan-European ethno-nationalism too, as a treat.)
1653752325739.png
 
Socialism and Communism are two different things. Too bad self-proclaimed socialists are too fucking stupid to understand. Socialism is not incompatible with capitalism. It is just much harsher on capitalism and more restrictive. Because we're in late-stage capitalism right now and its not fucking good for anyone. Consolidation of all the wealth in few hands is incredibly destructive. There should be very few billionaires and there should be incredibly strict limits on how they influence society.

A socialist society would prevent this mass consolidation of wealth, but it would not prevent you from owning things or creating things or running a business. Instead of mega corporations, it'd be much smaller, regional corporations. It would be more smaller businesses than massive retail chains. Copyrights would be less restrictive as well. You'd still have to work to earn a good living. But the government should provide the bare minimum to its citizens if its taking taxes. And it shouldn't allow the wealthy to have a massive influence on society. Socialism also promotes nationalism and unity; and working for free to benefit the poor. Some socialist nations require civil service before you can go out on your own. Either militarily or service-based. Nationalism and socialism are not incompatible. Again, its a uniting, humanitarian ideology. It puts the people first ahead of the corporation, ahead of wealth. A government in service to its citizens, not the other way around. And that sort of ideology does require nationalism and pride in a nation-state to work.

Sadly, today's self proclaimed socialists are too fucking retarded and think socialism and communism are identical. They aren't. Socialism is a humanitarian ideology. It isn't 'free things for everybody' its 'make sure your people don't starve on the streets, die in massive poverty or the elderly die eating catfood because they can no longer work'. That's what it is. But the entire socialist movement is burdened by retards who favor identity politics and policies of division rather than anything humanitarian. Modern-day socialists are tools of the modern capitalist, designed to provoke division and prevent any truly humanitarian movement from forming. They equate nationalism with jingoism, and are unable to separate the two ideologies and merge them together. Modern socialists are tools of the globalist, the neo-liberal and the neo-conservative, proping up ideologies that negatively impact most people in the nation and supporting fairy tale beliefs that absolutely few hold. They are the useful idiots of the robber baron, the mega corporation and the 1%. They ensure true populists can never rise to the top and if true populists do, then they'll just get shot as they have a tendency to do.
 
Last edited:
Socialists believe everything is social.... and nothing actually is hard-coded to exist a certain way that you can't undo just by being a, *sigh* "community" about it at best, and maybe a little ... just a teensy little... oppression of free speech at worst... with guns.

They fundamentally misunderstand that the default state of the world is not just, but unjust, and that most human activity is trying to bring as just a solution as possible to a chaotic world instead of ruining the fair and classless utopia they foolishly believe once existed.

To them, our institutions hold us back and drag us down from the clouds instead of lifting us above the swamps.

That's why they lose, why they have always lost and why they will keep losing.... they don't see themselves as part of a society that, on the whole, is a conglomeration of uplifted animals, not embarrassed Gods.

They've got life's flow-chart upside down.
 
despite having different politics i like jacobin as a publication, they publish good writers and are honest about the draw backs and failings of the american left while not being afraid to be critical of figures like sanders/AOC. it’s not total orange man bad shit, low bar i know.

My impresion of jacobin and its admitedly very small branch of older style leftism is that they are principled opposition so to speak, doesnt stop them from being retarded but they legit feel more like people with actual political disagreement than bunch of consoomers just repeating whatever the media tells them.
 
Socialism and Communism are two different things. Too bad self-proclaimed socialists are too fucking stupid to understand. Socialism is not incompatible with capitalism. It is just much harsher on capitalism and more restrictive. Because we're in late-stage capitalism right now and its not fucking good for anyone. Consolidation of all the wealth in few hands is incredibly destructive. There should be very few billionaires and there should be incredibly strict limits on how they influence society.

A socialist society would prevent this mass consolidation of wealth, but it would not prevent you from owning things or creating things or running a business. Instead of mega corporations, it'd be much smaller, regional corporations. It would be more smaller businesses than massive retail chains. Copyrights would be less restrictive as well. You'd still have to work to earn a good living. But the government should provide the bare minimum to its citizens if its taking taxes. And it shouldn't allow the wealthy to have a massive influence on society. Socialism also promotes nationalism and unity; and working for free to benefit the poor. Some socialist nations require civil service before you can go out on your own. Either militarily or service-based. Nationalism and socialism are not incompatible. Again, its a uniting, humanitarian ideology. It puts the people first ahead of the corporation, ahead of wealth. A government in service to its citizens, not the other way around. And that sort of ideology does require nationalism and pride in a nation-state to work.

Sadly, today's self proclaimed socialists are too fucking retarded and think socialism and communism are identical. They aren't. Socialism is a humanitarian ideology. It isn't 'free things for everybody' its 'make sure your people don't starve on the streets, die in massive poverty or the elderly die eating catfood because they can no longer work'. That's what it is. But the entire socialist movement is burdened by retards who favor identity politics and policies of division rather than anything humanitarian. Modern-day socialists are tools of the modern capitalist, designed to provoke division and prevent any truly humanitarian movement from forming. They equate nationalism with jingoism, and are unable to separate the two ideologies and merge them together. Modern socialists are tools of the globalist, the neo-liberal and the neo-conservative, proping up ideologies that negatively impact most people in the nation and supporting fairy tale beliefs that absolutely few hold. They are the useful idiots of the robber baron, the mega corporation and the 1%. They ensure true populists can never rise to the top and if true populists do, then they'll just get shot as they have a tendency to do.
I can't think of a single socialist country that's ever worked.
 
The common internet socialist is a a soycuck loser, everyone knows that national socialism is the way to go. (We can have some pan-European ethno-nationalism too, as a treat.)
View attachment 3329314
Unironically this. Socialism without nationalism is destined to fail, how the fuck can you have any kind of welfare state when you keep importing people who haven't paid into it? If you ignore issues like government corruption and have the state as a benevolent actor, it still fails when people who don't contribute just show up for medical treatment, housing, etc.
Internet socialists/communists just want working people to subsidize their lifestyles. They want everyone to have medical treatment for free, ok thats fine. But when you suggest banning drugs, punishing promiscuity, removing obese people from the healthcare service, etc they start to freak out. They won't take care of their own healthy, but they insist society has an obligation to do so, note that no example was fucking over people born with problems, but instead excluding those who live unhealthy lifestyles. They just want people to carry them through life. Free university education? Ok but only STEM, medicine, etc. Oh no they insist they must be coddled and everyone pays for them to piss around with a worthless degree.

Socialism is popular in America because it keeps being peddled by and for parasites. I 100% think socialism can work, just not in America where the fat people alone would destroy the healthcare service, thats before looking at any other issues like pretending me can give birth, enclaves not speaking English so you need translators, affirmative action destroying competent institutions, etc. If America goes socialist it will be the shortest lived of all socialist states because American socialists don't have what it takes to make it work. Where I live my grandfathers generation were/are very much socialist, they don't like or resemble the modern brand of socialism in the slightest.
 
Internet socialists believe in socialism the same way internet atheists believe in atheism: a trendy way to signal how much cooler and smarter they are than everyone else, and a venue to impotently whine how they could solve all the world's problems if everyone would just do what they wanted, their own self-interest be damned.
 
how the fuck can you have any kind of welfare state when you keep importing people who haven't paid into it?

Because they all DEAD ASS believe that THEY will be the one standing there with a clipboard delegating, ordering, and OOOOOPRESSING all the rest of us--all while reminding us dum dum dipshits that they went to COLLAGE and they have a DAGREE, and you're going to Jupiter to get more stupider.

They have zero idea that they'll really be hearing: "How compelling. Prease face wauw!"
 
I found that, compared to non-socialist Americans, Americans who identify as socialist are consistently more pro-redistribution, more disdainful of the rich and big business, and less likely to be ideologically racist or hold anti-immigrant sentiments.
Emphasis mine.

I think this poll must have specifically polled adults, which is where the incongruency between the type of socialist that us internet-dwelling losers see vs. the type of socialist that Jacobin sees arises. Teenage socialists are absolutely pro big business and are about as racist as possible, transcending the borders of race and somehow managing to be racist against every race including their own. Their only ideologies are "give me free shit" and "fuck anyone who isn't me". They hate poor people because poor people don't give them free shit. Rich people do, by way of taxes or charity.

Adult socialists tend to be less retarded than teenagers, which I realize borders on tautology, but there's a major difference beyond age. Older socialists are usually lazy and want free shit too, but many of them are actually net contributors who would be financially damaged by socialist policy. They tend to be idealists who think that the reason for all inner city crime is that poor people aren't being given enough "opportunities". They are wrong, but their heart is in the right place.
 
I can't think of a single socialist country that's ever worked.
And don't say the Scandis because they will very quickly correct you. I actually think one of the greatest casualties of WWII was all the third way political theorizing, between Fascism and Naziism and the Cold War, it pretty much locked us in a bizarre Capitalism/Marxism thing, where there can't be anything else. Now we're stuck in the most boring Corporatist cyberpunk dystopia possible and the only alternatives people can think of are straight Marxism, which never works, and some kind of bizarre Libertarian/Objectivist world where no one can make you stop selling heroin to Kindergarteners without violating the NAP, and that's why you have an elite army of Child Soldiers.
 
Back
Top Bottom