🐱 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.
 
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.
Like all socialisms this is so very wrong, let us hopefully briefly count some of the ways

1. Late stage capitalism is not real, it's a seethe and cope term. It does not exist so it can mean whatever those employing it want it to mean. The current economic system of the West is a regression towards the mercantilist, royal charter style 'capitalism' of the 1600s. It isn't late stage. It's primitive.
2. Socialism is incompatible with capitalism, you can try to redefine socialism to some self serving pap but good luck with that.
3. All wealth is not concentrated in a very few hands, but if you want to avoid that, the empirical record shows avoiding socialism is the way to do so. There is no system that concentrates wealth in the hands of a few more adeptly than socialism does.
4. It's a guarantee the fewer billionaires there are and the more restricted they are, the poorer and shittier the society will be.
5. Socialism is a humanitarian philosophy :story: and the paving of the road to hell is made of what again?
6. Gonna pull out good old Milton Friedman here. What is the State? What is a corporation? Do they have existence separate from people? No they do not. No people, no State. No corporations. Putting people before wealth simply means having a weight of guntlike proportions sitting on the ability of free individuals and free associations of individuals to create and accumulate wealth, with the predictable consequences shown in every self avowed socialist nation to ever exist.
7. Making sure people don't starve on the streets or die in massive poverty or die in old age eating cat food because they can no longer work is not exactly a hallmark of socialism.

tldr if socialism worked it wouldn't have to be constantly redefined by socialists to yet another arrangement of unicorns and rainbow farts.
 
Last edited:
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 led to the Populist party in the 1890s to rise up. Deflation of the USD made it so banks profited while working class got crushed under a contracting money supply. Today we've got to be careful about Neo-Marxists trying to be as divisive as possible to encourage "la revolution" at the expesne of everyone else
 
Last edited:
2. Socialism is incompatible with capitalism, you can try to redefine socialism to some self serving pap but good luck with that.
Socialism is incompatible with basic human rights..... I'd argue.

It consistently fails to respect anything a single human individual does as having any worth outside of the greater "community" if given the chance.

Redefine it indeed, any way you wish.

If put in charge, socialism inevitably, sooner rather than later, begins to deny you the right to express yourself, first with your money, then with your hands, and finally, with your own thoughts and dreams.

The only thing it has different from communism is communism is even more upfront and more militant about it's desire to see individuality subverted immediately, socialists can fake not wanting the same fate for at least a little while.
 
Do the people running this idiot website even realize what a collection of vicious, rabid weasels the original Jacobins were?
 
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!"
This is what happened during Mao's Cultural Revolution. A bunch of college kids got convinced they would be the head of a glorious people's utopia and they could strikeback at all their ignorant bullies. Except their ignorant bullies were Mao's right hand men and the students got shipped off to do hard labor in the fields if they were lucky. If they weren't lucky their fellow revolutionaries sold them out and they got the bullet right along with all the capitalist pigs they hated so much.
 
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.

Recently unemployed wikipedia admin:
social.jpg
 
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.
I have an opposite experience from this. The socialists I met were very judgemental and treated minorities like children with special needs. They also have an arrogant attitude, too.

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.
Surveys can be worded differently that may skew the results. Also, anybody can lie in surveys, so the results may not reflect the actual beliefs of the person. I would take this result with a grain of salt.
 
America in the 50's? With its 95% tax band? I would say that the post war consensus is the closest the west has got to socialism.
Socialism is when tax.

Fed spending as percentage of GDP is America's best (still shitty, gamed, etc.) measurement of "socialism," if you insist on pretending "socialism" is an economic philosophy rather than a sadistic attitude toward one's fellow citizens.

Governemnt Spending as Percent of GDP - Federal.png


united-states-government-spending-to-gdp.png
 
Socialism is when tax.

Fed spending as percentage of GDP is America's best (still shitty, gamed, etc.) measurement of "socialism," if you insist on pretending "socialism" is an economic philosophy rather than a sadistic attitude toward one's fellow citizens.

View attachment 3330716

View attachment 3330717
You're right, of course, it's not always purely economic. For example, in the UK, socialists tend to be Republicans. Those philosophies go hand in hand over here, in general.
 
You're right, of course, it's not always purely economic. For example, in the UK, socialists tend to be Republicans. Those philosophies go hand in hand over here, in general.
Which is ironic considering so many of the public services and welfare are literally called crown enterprises.
 
Socialists want to have what they call, "the means of production" in public ownership.

Which is stupid, there is no moral or ethical reason why I shouldn't be allowed to privately own something that could be used as a "means of production." And I can come up with a multitude of ways to blur the lines between "personal" and "private" property.

It's also completely unnecessary, because worker co-ops are still possible under free markets or capitalism. You can share the means of production with your fellow workers, provided you got it through legitimate means, and don't force your "socialist" lifestyle on others. But you wouldn't be a socialist or communist then, because socialists want to abolish capitalism, not coexist with it.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that just misanthropy?
In practice yes, but the way they do it is specifically racist. All white people are evil oppressors (just like Voldemort in heccin Harry Potter), all black people are retarded helpless ape creatures, all mexicans are low skill laborers who can't survive without welfare, and so forth. They see all things as extreme stereotypes, which is also why they think that the two options for a state's economy are "polluted hellscape with one billionaire and infinite broke peasants" and "high tech utopia where everyone has everything and doesn't have to work".
 
If put in charge, socialism inevitably, sooner rather than later, begins to deny you the right to express yourself, first with your money, then with your hands, and finally, with your own thoughts and dreams.

The only thing it has different from communism is communism is even more upfront and more militant about it's desire to see individuality subverted immediately, socialists can fake not wanting the same fate for at least a little while.
To add to this, the Catalonian "anarchists" were extremely insistent that anyone who owned and farmed their own land surrender it to the local worker's council. "No no comrade, that is not your land. That is our land." The land wasn't free from oppression until every man who worked his family's ancestral holdings had either handed it over to the local council or gotten beaten to death by a mob.
 
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.
Some old school socialists I know, the ones who are completely opposed to progressive shit, are pro-businesses in the sense that they support small businesses that can guarantee the ones involved can survive out of it. Their main issue is with competing against big business, which they see as unfair competition and default villainous. As I see it, they're unable to understand why, in a small local business, everybody earns almost the same while, in a big corporation, the big bosses make much, much more than, say, the person who does the cleaning. Hence, their wish to tax them to death and "redistribute" the profit. In some cases, they do understand why, but they still think they need to tax them out of a sense of "justice".

I don't disagree with how it's "unfair" that big corporations end up competing with small business and win (although not always), but regulate them and taxing them to death isn't the solution either. You can't punish someone for being successful.
 
Back
Top Bottom