316
What If Socialism Takes Over the Democratic Party?
(jacobin.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
316 points (96.5% liked)
politics
30311 readers
2551 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
North Korea, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia... Man, Cambodia was really bad.
The only real exception people point to is China, but they've embraced market capitalism to such an extent that even they recognized a purely socialist economy wasn't sustainable. You can't take that away from them.
I always ask the same question of people who enthusiastically support socialism but don't seem to understand what the word actually means: What country would you want to move to that is currently socialist, or that has been socialist in the past?
It's a simple question, and I rarely get a direct answer.
I usually reply to that with: "And if you love capitalism that much why don't you move to the US instead?"
That still doesn't answer the question.
I live in the United States, and I love my country.
The fact is that, as far as I'm aware, there has never been a single socialist country that has been broadly successful, and I don't think there ever will be. So answer the question.
You say you support socialism, but you choose to live in a country that isn't socialist because it's prosperous, stable, and safe. If socialism is the superior system, why wouldn't you want to live in a country that actually practices it?
Why do you like socialism so much? Have you ever lived in a socialist country? Have you even visited one? Can you point to a socialist country, either current or historical, that you would willingly move to?
It seems like you're just repeating things you've read on Lemmy or elsewhere on the internet. You don't appear to understand what socialism actually is, how it functions, or how it differs from social democracy or democratic socialism. You keep calling welfare programs "socialism," when they aren't.
Answer the fucking question, what country would you move to that is currently socialist or has been socialist in the past?
And don't you even dare deflect to the fact that I live in America and that you think it's a terrible country? Don't even try it. It's not going to work.
So... do you understand that authoritarianism isn't necessarily fascism? You're listing authoritarian regimes, but none of those were fascist. At an extreme simplification, authoritarian/libertarian is an entirely separate axis from left/right.
Stalin is one of the most evil men in history and committed atrocities against his own people but he and his regime were most emphatically not fascists.
All governments are authoritative. They necessarily have to be so according to the social contract.
It's just funny that the person responding to you only cares about if a given government and ideology is authoritative when it's something they don't like.
Capitalist liberalism is also authoritative and seeks to suppress and oppress dissent against weath consolidation and rights violations.
I mean I guess that's true but it's certainly a spectrum. There's a fair difference between a Western democracy like Canada and whatever we're saying the PRC is these days. And an even bigger difference between that and Stephen Miller's fantasy, and there'd still be a difference between Stephen Miller's rotten mind and what Stalin was doing.
A government must to some extent be authoritarian but that doesn't necessarily mean it's mutually exclusive with civil and personal freedoms.
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian political ideology characterized by dictatorial leadership, extreme nationalism, suppression of political opposition, and the subordination of individual rights to what the state or nation is said to require.
Stalin wasn't an fascist? Are you taking the piss?
Red fascism is more or less something ginned up in the early stages of the Cold War as a way to conveniently carry the fight through to the new enemy.
Stalin was not fascist, nor is Stalinism related to fascism. Stalin was a fucking monster regardless of whatever label you prefer, though.
If we look at other cited regimes, your footing is even weaker. Mao wasn't a fascist, and none of the leaders of the PRC since then have been. Same for Castro and Cuba. Pol Pot was one fucked up dude, but he wasn't fascist.
Stalin is certainly the closest comparison, but he's still not fascist.
I understand where you're coming from, and I understand why you believe this is true, especially when you take into account the current consensus among historians and other authority figures on the subject. They generally agree that Stalin and the other figures you mentioned were not fascists.
I disagree.
They qualify as fascists under every metric of the definition, and in abundance. Being communist, or labeling Stalin’s system “Stalinism,” does not exclude it from being fascism. Those labels do not change the underlying structure.
By every measurable standard, they were fascists, unequivocally,
Saying that a totalitarian ultra-nationalistic authoritative and violent regime isn't fascist because they called themselves communists is historically and morally disingenuous.
What a great little technical out for some of the worst people on Earth and in human history to not be called fascists.
So you're acknowledging that there's a general consensus among historians and political scientists and rejecting it anyway?
Well, you do you I guess.
Yes, in this case I am.
Because this represents a historical double standard. Hitler called himself a National Socialist, and his party bore that name, yet he is almost universally regarded as a fascist. Meanwhile, Stalin called himself a communist, implemented many of the same methods of repression, mass murder, political terror, and totalitarian control, yet he is not considered a fascist simply because he identified as a communist.
Some of the worst people in history seem to be allowed to define themselves by whatever label they chose, rather than by what they actually did.
That doesn't make sense to me, linguistically, historically, or otherwise. Stalin, , and others exhibited many characteristics commonly associated with fascist regimes. The fact that they called themselves communists or attempted to build socialist states does not, in my view, automatically negate those fascistic characteristics.
It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with an established historical consensus. We're not talking about hard sciences like biology or chemistry. We're talking about history, where conclusions are based on the interpretation of evidence rather than controlled experimentation. Whether history should even be considered a science is a separate debate.
For that reason, I don't think a historical consensus should be treated as infallible simply because it is widely accepted.
Tell me, in your opinion, how do you define and differentiate Socialism and Communism?
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned collectively by the public rather than by private individuals.
Communism, as it has existed in practice, is a political and economic system in which a one-party state controls the means of production and directs the economy, with the stated goal of advancing the interests of society as a whole. In theory, however, communism was originally envisioned by as a stateless, classless society that would emerge after socialism.
Noticed that the definition of communism is more involved and longer than the definition of socialism that is of course by necessity as it's more complicated than the other.
I'd also preemptively like to point out that not every communist government is a one-party system, nor is it predicated upon that. That's just what it's been historically in the majority.
Also nobody ever answers the question. What country would you like to live in that is socialist historically or today?
Technically, the single party state thing is intended to be a temporary thing. It's meant to last only long enough until the whole stateless, classless thing comes to be.
People being people though... the people in charge start to enjoy the benefits of being in charge and tend to not want to keep going. Mao sure never missed a meal during that famine his regime caused.
It's a critical weakness in the Marxist-Leninist ideology and why I can't buy into it myself. I feel like any would-be "better way of doing things" has to take into account how people actually behave when exposed to and given power over others.
And you touched on a very interesting point that I rarely get to in discussions about socialism here on Lemmy: the human condition, the very nature of the human species. In my view, that's what negates socialism as a viable option. It's great on paper, and I even support it from a technical standpoint. It just doesn't work because, to rehash an old slogan, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I think it's an overall dramatically better way of running things than capitalism for what are hopefully obvious reasons. But I also think even "partial socialism" is still an improvement. Reform is maybe not ideal but it's still better than what we have now. So long as you don't stop pushing for and seeking out that better, brighter future for everyone.
Could you ship of theseus your way into socialism? Who knows? I'd be willing to try though.
Would you classify democratic socialism and social democracy under the umbrella of socialism, or would you classify them differently? For the record, I am not a Stalinist, Leninist, or Maoist, if that clarifies matters.
Social democracy is a capitalist economic system supplemented by large and robust welfare programs and a heavily regulated private sector. Things like strong anti-monopoly laws, relatively small wage gaps between workers and executives, strong unions, and progressive taxation are all characteristic of social democracy.
Democratic socialism is similar in many respects, but its long-term goal is to eliminate capitalism entirely by transitioning the means of production to public ownership. That does not necessarily entail communism, since most democratic socialists advocate maintaining a democratic system of government rather than adopting a one-party state.
I do not classify social democracy as socialism because its economy remains fundamentally capitalist.
I do consider democratic socialism to be a form of socialism, though with many important caveats. It does not inherently require or inevitably lead to communism.
I am personally less supportive of democratic socialism because I have a deep distrust of both the human condition and the long-term viability of a fully publicly owned economy. Historically, I do not believe such systems have produced consistently successful outcomes.
Would you consider any European country currently existing to fall under the category of Democratic Socialism?
No. There are currently no countries in Europe that are democratically socialist officially.