Socialism vs. Capitalism?

[brooklynite]

Source: Monmouth Polling Institute

West Long Branch, NJ – Most Americans say socialism is not compatible with American values, but only 4-in-10 hold a decidedly negative opinion of it. The latest Monmouth University Poll also finds that less than half the country has a clearly positive opinion of capitalism. Republicans have stronger, largely negative, views of socialism. Democrats tend to be more neutral; at the same time they give overwhelming support to universal health care – a policy which both supporters and detractors have painted as a socialist policy.

A majority of Americans (57%) say that socialism is not compatible with American values. Just 29% say it is compatible. About 4-in-10 (42%) have a negative opinion of socialism in general, with another 45% having a neutral opinion and just 10% holding a positive view of socialism. Public opinion about capitalism – while largely positive – is not overwhelmingly favorable, however. Nearly 4-in-10 Americans (39%) have a positive opinion of capitalism in general and a similar 40% have a neutral opinion. Another 17% hold a negative view of capitalism.

Taken together, Americans divide into two dominant camps – 29% who have a positive view of capitalism and a negative view of socialism and 30% who have neutral opinions of both capitalism and socialism. The remaining 4-in-10 Americans hold a range of mixed views on the two economic systems. The vast majority of pro-capitalist/anti-socialist Americans identify as Republicans (49%) or lean toward the Republican Party (29%). Just 8% are Democrats or lean Democratic. This group also skews older – nearly half (47%) are aged 55 and over, compared to 34% who are aged 35 to 54 and just 19% who are under 35 years old. Almost two-thirds (64%) of this group are men versus 36% who are women. On the other hand, the majority of Americans who are neutral about both economic systems identify as Democrats (46%) or lean toward the Democratic Party (17%). Another 18% are Republican or lean Republican. This neutral group skews slightly younger than the population as a whole, with 37% who are 18 to 34 years old, 30% who are 35 to 54, and 33% who are 55 and older. The gender split for this group – 55% women and 45% men – is only slightly more female than the public as a whole.

“We may be in a period of flux with how these economic systems are viewed. Socialism still carries a stigma, but many Americans feel they are being left behind by the current capitalist system. Policies that have traditionally been seen as socialist may be getting more popular even if the term itself is not,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.

Read more: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_050619/

[rusty quoin]

1. 20 years ago I had a negative opinion of socialism. I don't anymore.

[olddad65]

2. in the trump/putin era, the argument isn't socialism vs Capitalism,

it is socialism or capitalism vs. fascism

[Kurt V.]

3. in the future it won't be either, but a hybrid mix. so say the big brains.

[Blackjackdavey]

48. It's been a mix since the new deal.

This poll says more about our education system and propaganda than anything else.

[Buzz cook]

55. Earlier than that.

Public education is socialistic. Free labor is socialistic. Universal suffrage is socialistic.

[jalan48]

4. Once the country finally starts to deal with climate change the corporations will be

nowhere to be seen. It will be the citizens picking up the "socialized" costs.

[ancianita]

5. Socialism and capitalism have coexisted since FDR. This is sorted out on social media daily.

There's no "versus." Socialism both regulates and enables capitalism.

Socialism is taxes spent on taxpayers, which provides incomes that help local business provide local jobs.

Socialism is the well kept secret of government subsidies to the Bigs of the .01%.

Like taxes and law enforcement, socialism is only stigmatized or presented as a "versus" when the 99% want socialist benefits the .01% have always had.

[brooklynite]

6. No, they haven't...

...because your definition of socialism is not the accepted definition:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Government roads, Medicare, Fire Departments, etc. are NOT socialism.

[ancianita]

11. Socialism is no longer your grandad's "means of production"Stalinist socialism.I'm talking reality.

You're talking textbook. I read all that textbook decades ago.

We know how history presents socialism.

It's silly to think that socialism cannot or does not evolve as a "means" becomes economic policy that lives in other contexts.

We know how socialism is practiced in capitalist Northern Europe, Canada and Australia. I have family in Australia who've told me all about it.

Tell them that they're mistaken, and the name for what they're living under, not me.

There need be no "versus." There is what's best.

Grandpa's dead and so is Stalin. So is the textbook definition of socialism. It does not exist in the real world. Nor is there any plot -- in China or Russia -- to have it be so.

[brooklynite]

18. I'm talking reality as well...

Socialism has an economic definition that's "dated" only because the structure been shown not to be successful. If the meaning no longer applies, then you have to come up with another term to define the economic structure. There are perfectly appropriate terms used to describe the safety net spending that Sander and his supporters like, and there's no reason to try to rehabilitate a term that doesn't play well politically.

[ancianita]

20. Agreed. What would be the term you'd use to describe the safety net spending that Sanders and

his supporters like. Since you brought it up.

What economic structure label would you give it outside that context.

[JonLP24]

43. What would happen if the US didn't sanction or invade every country

That tried socialism? Even Democratic Elected ones have you readDisaster Capitalism? What we replaced socialism with in those countries is far worse. Saudi Arabia has the worst labor rights in the world and they hate communists.

Both neoconservatives & neoliberals have created an economy that favors the rich, leads to more deregulation, monopolization especially of the news media. On top of that they brought us mass incarceration to solve the problem lazily of income inequality. It is also practically illegal to be homeless. News is not as Independent as it used to be. Thank God for the internet and independent reporting like The Intercept for example.

[brooklynite]

46. Answer: nothing

Purely socialist economies would continue to be unpopular.

[JonLP24]

47. It would be more popular for the government's that want them instead

Of ruthless capitalism. Things are mostly fine here if you have a decent income but you should see the way capitalism treats other countries. Nike they might pay well in the US or not but certainly in the past their overseas labor practices were awful Just Do It took on a whole new meaning. Major companies like that have a lot of power. I blame oil companies for climate change denial as well as climate change.

[brooklynite]

50. You know what's an even MORE popular alternative to ruthless capitalism? Regulated capitalism

Like all the social democratic capitalist systems in Scandinavia.

[Xolodno]

36. Yes they are. And your understanding of capitalism is, at best misplaced.

Capitalism definition;

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

So which private toll road did you use to go to work today?

And if your house is on fire, which private fire department do you use?

Likewise, if you are having a heart attack, which hospital do you choose?

A pure capitalist system would have you make those choices....and they are inefficient.

What we call "Socialist" vs. "Capitalist" is largely one's point of view here in the USA. Some nations lean more Socialist...and so, we call them Socialist...but because some "hate" that term, they call them "well regulated capitalism"...whatever. I was talking someone from Scotland today, and she could not understand the adversarial response to Socialism in the USA.

Likewise, nations that lean more capitalist, are called capitalist.

Reality. There is no such thing as a nation that is pure Socialist or Capitalist. They are all some form of a mixed economy leaning one direction more than the other, end of story. And the nations that are capitalist leaning, often call Communist Nations as Socialist, when they are two different systems. And for the record, there never has been a true Communist Nation....aside from TV such as Star Trek. Communist nations today and the past are just economical dictatorships that don't fit any scientific definition.

..................

As an epilogue, I'm going to save us some key strokes. Your going to say I'm wrong (despite spending several years getting my econ degree) and don't know what I'm talking about and reference something.

I'll see your response, roll my eyes...and not bother responding. Plus ask myself why did I bother....I've been through this rodeo a few times on DU....

Sure everyone's ideas of socialism doesn't purely line up to the definition....but they are farther away from the definition of capitalism. But I'm not going to fight this battle, you want to call it something else, be my guest. But lets just agree to get there already. And yes, that's a defeatist attitude...but I have my reasons for it.

[brooklynite]

38. Answers...

Private toll roads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United_States

If I'm sick, I CAN use an ambulance, or I can take a private car to my doctor

I can hire a private security firm to watch over my house

...and I don't CARE if you read my answers, because the bottom line is that the majority of english-speaking people recognize the agreed-on definition of Socialism and Capitalism, not the Bernie Sanders definitions. If you want SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC policies, that's great and I'll agree with you. But in an electoral setting, if you're spending time explaining to voters that they don't understand what socialism really is, you've already lost the argument. Consider this: you can't even convince everyone HERE of your definition.

[Yavin4]

9. What you're describing is Social Democracy, not Socialism.

Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production for the benefit of the whole. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production for the profit of the Capitalist class.

Social Democracy is the intervention of democratically elected government (or public) into the private markets to promote the general welfare of the people. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, public infrastructure, etc. are examples of Social Democracy.

[ancianita]

13. Call it what you like.

I'm part of that percentage in the Monmouth study that define it in modern pragmatic terms.

[Yavin4]

22. Getting it right matters.

Misunderstanding Socialism, Capitalism, and Social Democracy leads to bad policies and outcomes. For example, Medicare for All is could be a form of Socialism if private health insurance is not allowed. That leads to one set of outcomes. However, if private health insurance is allowed for supplemental or other forms of insurance, then Medicare would be more of a Social Democratic policy which lead to a much different outcome.

[christx30]

23. It's important to find the right label

and distance ourselves from the negative connotations. You say ‘socialism’, and my mind goes to Stalin, the Purges, gulags, people in red berets marching in lock-step, rooting out the ‘enemies of the revolution’.
But ‘social democracy’? That seems like a laudable goal. Sounds like people making good decisions and taking care of everyone.

[MarcA]

12. We need to concentrate on Issues and Facts.

We don't need to get stuck on labels, semantics or evolving definitions.

[ancianita]

14. Not stuck at all. Again, I'm part of that percentage in the Monmouth study that define it in modern

pragmatic terms.

[MarcA]

15. I agree with you. Just that the public can be reached by discussing the Issues

regardless of whatever label whomever puts on the solutions.

[ancianita]

17. Okay. I'm saying what I'm saying to that public. The issue is that they're not "versus."

Perhaps you have some other goal here. But that's not mine.

[ancianita]

19. The "means of ALL production" point is dead. If you see a "solution" with either, say what it is.

Capitalism is the problem of jungle ethics, and, in fact, strives to control ALL the means of production and turns the worker into an exploitable asset. Socialism is the "solution" that mitigates against capitalism. One isn't out to overthrow the other, evidenced by the socialism that capitalists enjoy at the expense of human beings born into a form of capitalism they have no say about, except through the imposition of law.

If that's called democratic socialism, or democratic capitalism, I'm fine with that.

[The Mouth]

21. Lablels matter.

Sometimes more than substance, if one is trying to get policy implemented.

sad, but true.

[exboyfil]

53. The problem is the general public has

the attention span of turnips. It comes down to labels. That is the only way a cretin like Trump could get elected. Hillary Clinton had detailed policy proposals. Trump had promises and referral to himself as the miracle man.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. No, that's not socialism; it's social welfare. Big difference.

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are collectively owned, i.e., by the government or by the people directly. We don't have anything close to that here, or in any of the western democracies. Social welfare is not socialism. Sometimes a comparison is made with the Scandinavian countries, which have robust social safety nets, but those countries are not socialist countries; they are capitalist democracies whose citizens, through their governments, have agreed to be taxed in amounts sufficient to ensure that all citizens have pensions, child care, education, health care, etc.

Norway, on account of its oil industry, has the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, which covers pensions and other programs. 67% of its oil company, Equinor, is owned by the government, so maybe you could say that's a sort of socialism. But 30% is publicly traded like any corporate stock, and 3% goes to the pension fund, whose assets are invested so that when there's no more oil there will still be a pension fund. Norway is a capitalist country because with the exception of 2/3 of Equinor, the corporations and businesses (the means of production and distribution) are privately owned, just as in the U.S. But its capitalism is different from ours because its people believe in using taxes and some of the investments from its oil wealth for the welfare of all of its citizens.

[ancianita]

34. I get the socialist welfare examples here. Now give a real world example of socialism.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. There are countries that call themselves socialist -

North Korea, for example (and I suppose in the technical sense it is socialist because the government owns and controls everything) - but it's also been described as a Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship. Of course, one shouldn't confuse a system of economics with a system of government, so I suppose NK could be both. Most of the other countries who call themselves socialist are Marxist-Leninist, and thus subscribe to "socialism" as the halfway point between capitalism and communism (collectivization). None of them are countries I'd want to live in. Some countries use the word "socialist" in their constitutions but do not function as socialist countries (India is an example), while other countries have governing socialist parties but the countries themselves don't regard themselves as socialist.

[ancianita]

37. Every country named you've had to qualify. I conclude that socialism doesn't exist in reality. It's

always mixed with some other pragmatic structure for economic purposes. When it exists for society, it exists as "socialist welfare," which, itself, exists within some other economic framework.

NK is totalitarian, not socialist. The people there own no "means" of anything but their labor for "dear leader."

Which is all I've said. There is no "versus." Because there's no pure socialism.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. I think that's probably true.

[Blackjackdavey]

49. Thank you

This conversation breaks out every now and again, someone breaks out a dictionary as if words don't have complex etiologies, evolving over the course of time and off we go. Let's just do it already, let's call it unicorns and puppies if we have to.

[Yavin4]

7. Americans are not well educated about either one

What many Americans attribute to Capitalism--rise of the middle class, labor protections on the job, clean environment, etc.--are constructs of Social Democracy, not Capitalism.

As for Socialism, most Americans' view of it come the failed experiments in the former USSR and Cuba. Socialism fails because it requires gradual change over generations. Simply changing the economic system without first establishing strong democratic institutions and peaceful reconciliations of social injustices doom it to failure.

[nycbos]

8. You can believe in a free market system AND...

... still be troubled by the level of income inequality and want to see middle class pay rises and a stronger social safety net.

[Yavin4]

10. The very nature of a 'free market' leads to unequal outcomes over time.

The entire purpose of Capitalism is to maximize profit of the Capitalist class. If you're not among that class, then you're not going to see any profit.

[nycbos]

40. Completely unregulated yes.

That's why regulations are necessary.

[Yavin4]

41. Once you introduce regulations, then you no longer have a "free market"

You have Social Democracy.

[brooklynite]

51. ...which is not socialism

[Yavin4]

52. Precisely.

Thank you.

[YOHABLO]

16. Let's throw out the term ''socialism'' for a minute. Let's talk about necessities of life.

Let's call it ''necessities of life -ism" Capitalism is really only for those who have capital.

[stuffmatters]

26. I like "Peopleism" (since Trump & GOP have destroyed the word "populism")

As in: Government for the good of all the people, not corporations or the 1%. It's the people's country not corporations. In a people's govt one person one vote.

[Stuart G]

24. Most Americans don't know what "socialism" is, and what it represents...

...We already have a very socialistic society. That is, we already have socialism. some examples:
_________________________________________________________________________________________

In New York City...who runs the subway system?....some private company, or some government agency?
Who owns that subway system? Who owns the airport?..Who owns the water department? Who provides the water?.
.Is it a government agency? Is that socialism?? We should go on forever with this..couldn't we?
There are so many agencies that are kinda socialistic, that there is not enough space for all of them..

The government through laws, even controls what goes into cars. Good or bad???
But, here are the facts...1979 and 1980..approximately 55,000 deaths on the highways..

last year....2018... about 35,000 deaths on the highways.

why?? Government ordered safety stuff in cars......seat belts, airbags, crumple zones..side airbags...

More??? Government ordered stuff on (not in) cars...side lights. rear window lights, safety bumpers...safety windows...?more...Government ordered stuff on the highways themselves...side highway protections...certain kind of safety lights, certain kind of safety signs, lights in some places....etc...etc...etc...etc...

Get the picture? The government orders stuff, nobody calls it socialism. The stuff and the orders save tens of thousands of lives, and of course, socialism and government orders and requirements are bad according to many. These idiots don't even know what it is?

So, with about 75,000,000 more cars on the road since 1980...we have 40 percent less deaths on the highways?..Why Government rules and requirements. oh that is ...."socialism" "government controls"
"Government ownership of the rules and regulations"..Yes, the government does not own the cars,
but it requires the cars and the highways to be much safer than they were 40 years ago...much safer...

..............GOOD OR BAD????????????????????????????????????

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. That's not socialism. See #27. While it's true that in some cities the government runs things like

the subway system, trash collection, snow removal, etc., in many cases the actual operations are owned and/or managed by a private corporation which subcontracts to the government. In my city, trash collection is handled by the city and is billed to us on our utility bill (water, etc.). But the city doesn't own the garbage trucks or pay the people who operate them; instead, it has contracts with several private trash collection companies. That way the city does not have to purchase and maintain hundreds of garbage trucks. The trash collectors compete with each other to get those city contracts. That's capitalism, not socialism. True socialism would have the city buy and maintain all the trucks and pay the drivers and collectors.

As to government-mandated safety regulations, that's not socialism either. It's just regulation. Federal regulations are created by government agencies through a process mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to which proposed regulations are subject to scrutiny by affected parties and review by the public - that is, through a democratic process (at least when it's working the way it should). It is a huge mistake to assume that anything the government does for the benefit of the general public is socialism because it isn't. As I explained in my previous post, socialism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled collectively and not through private ownership. We don't have that, and neither does any other western democracy.

[Yavin4]

42. " It is a huge mistake to assume that anything the government does for the benefit of the general"

public is socialism because it isn't."

Thank you very much for this. It's extremely important to make accurate descriptions. When we use inaccurate terminology, it allows for biased framing. What you described is Social Democracy where the government (or public) intervenes in the private markets for the benefit of the people. This is what the Nordic model does as well as most of Europe and Canada. There are still private interests operating for the benefit of profit, but the people are protected from the abuses of that system.

Socialism requires a higher evolved populace before it can work effectively. The public has to become more involved in how they are governed and how the economy works.

[ancianita]

57. Which means there is no such thing as pure socialism.

We really don't need to "correct" any discussion of the reality of socialism's forms to fit a textbook definition. There is no correlate in the real world for what I call the old school textbook definition.

"Socialism," as a term, must take on a new, modern meaning. The "Controlling the means of production" definition has to get tossed into the history's dustbin, since that phrase has never really been a feature in reality that benefited any of history's so-called worker-controllers.

The modern definition says that socialism exists in all kinds of "social" structures that amount to socialist welfare, or people-ism or "of, by and for the people" regulations that make capitalism more equitable for and accountable to everyone -- through laws -- to have a living wage, collectively alleviate all individuals' legitimate suffering in health care and death, supply disaster relief, public education, libraries, etc.

That kind of socialism is a form of human development, since humans are the most important asset of any state -- not assets as defined by capitalism.

To the extent that socialism is humane and capitalism is not, right there we have the "versus."

[Stuart G]

25. The rules and regulations save many lives.

Last edited Tue May 7, 2019, 10:10 PM - Edit history (6)

They save tens of thousands of lives. The government owns the rules, and the government does not own the cars, but commands how they are made.

Oh you want more??. Another example: food products. When you buy meat in the store, is it government inspected? Other food too? Well is that socialism?? Why socialism in food?
A man named Upton Sinclair wrote a book in 1906 called "The Jungle." Please read that book, and
.then you will know why there is government inspection and control of food in stores
End of rant, sorry for the rant, when I get going on government rules and people say or even think they are bad, I kinda go off. Thank You for your cooperation and understanding.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. That's not socialism; it's just regulation.

[Stuart G]

30. Government "regulations" that define a product and its contents are almost like the

Last edited Tue May 7, 2019, 10:22 PM - Edit history (4)

government making the product. Of course, it is "regulation" But, if the government made the productthen how different would it be if the government regulates the product?. The regulations are extremely important to safety, but given the nature of capitalism and businesses; the control of the product is almost like making the product. Why?

..We know the businesses would not add certain safety parts to products because those extras add price to the product. Being made to add those safety parts, is defining the product..Of course that is not ownership of the product or thing, but just ask somebody whose life was saved by the seat belt and air bags in a car..if he or she likes the socialsim and regulations...well, it won't matter to that person. The idea of the company adding the product by itself is absurd. Why? It didn't add the safety product before. Sure, the company still owns the product and sells the product and makes a profit, but the government controls the product. Of course, it is a question of defining the thing. When that airbag goes off and saves your life....it won't matter who owns it...what matters is that thing saved your life and the company would not have put it there if it had its own way..

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. But it's not socialism.

The fact that certain government regulations exist to mandate safety features is not socialism, which, as I already explained, is an economic system that we do not have. I used to work for an airline. The airline industry is one of the most heavily and comprehensively regulated industries in the U.S. FAA inspectors had offices in our building, and everything we did - any changes we made to a training program, for example, no matter how minor - had to be reviewed and signed off by them. Yet all U.S. airlines are private corporations with CEOs and publicly traded stock. They are not owned or managed by the government even though they are regulated with respect to matters related to safety. And even if they were government-owned, it would not mean that the U.S. has a socialist economic system. It does not. I think you are confusing the classic definition of socialism with the idea of government regulation for the benefit of citizens, but they are not in any respect the same thing.




Also, your period key is stuck.

[Stuart G]

32. The definition of "socialism" and the idea of "government regulation" are similar.

..The end result is the same. The control of the definition of the product. In true socialism, the government keeps the profit. Of course that is not true with regulations. Nevertheless, the end result is control of the product. Of course control is not ownership. Classic socialism means government own the means of production and keeps all of the profit.
....In car manufacturing, the company still owns the facilities to make the car, but the essence of how the car is made with the safety features is still controlled by the government. I guess what I am saying is that ownership is a minor concern, since the safety features would not be added without the government requiring them Yes, the government does not own the production facilities, and it does not get the profits. But in the end, the car is made in a way that the government requires.
...Also, it really doesn't matter because the cars are so much safer than they were. I go back to a time when seat belts were not required. None of the safety features were required. I heard of people being killed by being thrown out of cars. There is an argument that the government requiring certain features on cars is socialistic.
...Of course that is an argument and facts are facts. In the end, it doesn't matter what we call it. Or why we call it this or that. The cars are indeed so much safer than they were. And I do not think that the manufacturers would have added these features without government making them do so.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. Government regulation isn't socialism no matter how many times you say it is.

There are "liberal" regulations and "conservative" ones, and many which are just procedural. Most of them have nothing at all to do with safety or health, such as the Internal Revenue Code, and some regulations control what the government itself can and can't do, while some control what people or business can and can't do. There's nothing "socialistic" at all about the federal regulatory system.

Corporate actions relative to safety are affected by litigation at least as much as by regulation. Years ago, Ford made cars (Pintos) that sometimes exploded as a result of low-speed rear-end collisions, and a number of people were killed or injured. Ford got sued, and in one famous case, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., a jury awarded substantial punitive damages when it was discovered that Ford knew their gas tanks were dangerous but decided it was too expensive to recall the cars. The combination of terrible publicity and a huge punitive damages award got Ford to redesign the gas tanks (but nobody was buying Pintos after that anyhow). That change came about as a result of the operation of the free market, not regulation. Obviously, it would have been better if NHTSA had done a more careful job overseeing the design of Pinto's gas tanks, but the reality is that most safety regulations come about as the result of accidents and the lawsuits that arise from them, rather than some "socialist" regulator anticipating a safety issue. This is especially true of FAA regulations, even when the FAA wasn't as fucked up as it is now. Almost without fail, the FAA doesn't decide to enact a regulation or mandate a change in procedures, parts or designs until after an accident happens. This reluctance to regulate is often because of the industry's resistance to changing a component or a design because of the expense. That's capitalism in action, definitely not socialism.

[Yavin4]

45. Calling government regulations "Socialism" is a right wing/Libertarian frame

The frame is used to make any government action "Socialism" when it's not. "Socialism" has a historically negative connotations for most Americans largely due to the Cold War, and that makes It easier to build public opposition to any reasonable government regulation.

The prime example is the ACA which was largely regulations on the health insurance industry. it simply required health insurance companies to offer plans to people who wanted them. The health insurance companies are still held in private and their profits still go to the Capitalist class.

[JonLP24]

44. ...

In early July 2010, the North Iowa Tea Party (NITP) posted a billboard showing a photo of Adolf Hitler with the heading "National Socialism", one of Barack Obama with the heading "Democrat Socialism", and one of Vladimir Lenin with the heading "Marxist Socialism", all three marked with the word "change" and the statement "Radical leaders prey on the fearful and naive".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

[LibFarmer]

54. Very interesting

I read the whole report and it was enlightening.

Thanks for posting this.

[Buzz cook]

56. Socialism is not monolithic.

There are almost as many flavors of socialism as there are of xtianity. We in the USA have had the idea that Soviet style Marxist Leninist Communism is the only type hammered into our heads.

Fabianism is loads different from Communism but they're both in the same family.

When we say something is social democratic or democratic socialism and not socialism we are making a category error. Even the various types of socialism have subsets. Each is a social-political system that has a philosophical under pinning.

Capitalism has no philosophical under pinning it is not a social or political system. Capitalism existed prior to Adam Smith. When we speak of capitalism we speak of what degree of regulation or lack there is of it.
People have defended capitalism and claimed benefits from it but there is no nation that claims it as a founding principle.
Capitalism has existed within fascist states and communistic ones.

There is no choice here between the apples of socialism and the oranges of capitalism.