203

Poll: Approval of Socialism at Record High as Capitalist Principles Hit New Lows (truthout.org)

submitted 3 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[+] UsernamesAreForSuckers@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

[deleted]

[-] oce@jlai.lu 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Are you sure the growth of capitalism and the growth of technology are independent variables? Maybe they both contributed to each other and to people's conditions as a byproduct when the growth was big enough. It also seems some socialist countries' population have had some benefits from their country opening to a mixed economy with some free market and capitalism, instead of following strict socialist only policies.

[-] yucandu@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

"Mixed economy" isn't a phrase that fits in anyone's ideology though.

[-] Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago

Technology was going to develop either way. This feels like your trying to to apply the age old talking point that competition breeds innovation and most of the innovation bred these days is how to make everything worse and more expensive. Whether it be apple innovating a way to brick apple devices using the "wrong" parts, planned obsolescence, over utilization of wifi and "AI".

The soft implication that people don't want to develop technology to improve lives unless they're getting paid is a really disturbing one.

It's a bit hard to say anything against what yoir saying as well because you didn't specify anything. What capitalist/free market policies, what countries?

[-] oce@jlai.lu 4 points 2 days ago

Competition can breed innovation but I think it needs enough regulation for fair competition to actually happen and to protect consumers against abuse. I think this regulation was progressively dismantled in the USA especially under the various right wing presidents, culminating with the current one.

The soft implication that people don’t want to develop technology to improve lives unless they’re getting paid is a really disturbing one.

It's not the only motivation, but it's a big help. Do you believe people would be able to work as much without other incentive than helping people?
As an example, I do volunteering, but there's no way I would ever reach the same level of productivity as I do at my paid job.

It’s a bit hard to say anything against what yoir saying as well because you didn’t specify anything. What capitalist/free market policies, what countries?

China moved to a mixed economy system after the death of its ideologist.

The developing economy consists of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and mixed-ownership enterprises, as well as a large domestic private sector which contribute approximately 60% of the GDP, 80% of urban employment and 90% of new jobs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China

[-] Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

As an example, I do volunteering, but there's no way I would ever reach the same level of productivity as I do at my paid job.

Your again not specifying what exactly is happening. What's the job and what's the volunteer work. Some volunteer services will require you give it your all. Some jobs are very relaxed. What your talking about has less to do with incentive and more to do with lax labor laws. Nonvolunteer work isn't giving you upwards of 12 hours of mandatory overtime.

Incentives also aren't just rewards they're punishments and companies absolutely take advantage of the fact people are fucked without a job.

Your job and volunteer work likely have different expectations of performance from the get go and that has nothing to do with incentives.

You did touch on something though. Incentives can push people to work harder, now the issue is, what else does it introduce? It introduces redundancy where everything is being done twice, thrice, etc etc. How much more work could be done if they were working together.

If we want to talk about thinking well I don't think cancer researchers are in it for the money. I don't think many researchers are and if there are people like that it's only because society has been driving us to do that for centuries. In fact I would argue it harms innovation because it incentivizes people to work towards things that make money.

By doing so we shun vulnerable minorities who aren't a viable customer base. Minorities like trans people, amputees, chronic stroke victims, etc.

Hell this even hurts the majority, most food research is privately funded by parties with a conflict of interest. It's not just big dairy, it's big everything. In fact that's how the Anti-Vaccine movement blew up in the firat place, it started as an anti-MMR movement by Wakefield who had a financial motive to have people buy individual vaccines.

At what point do we just accept it's not capitalism that brings innovation to sociolism but the opposite? There are well intentioned people still working within capitalism, but it's in spite of it, not because of it.

China moved to a mixed economy system after the death of its ideologist.

I'm not touching this.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 2 points 2 days ago

Sorry, I'm not going to give you private information.

I guess your experience is from the USA where democracy, labour laws, social systems and regulations are all pretty dysfunctional, and getting worse as half the voters keep supporting it going worse.

Consider a European social country where those are more functional, with reasonable work time, no mandatory overtime, public healthcare etc.

You are focusing on possible bad outcomes of being paid for something and ignoring the rest, such as motivation and earning money through where you are best at, so you can buy what you are not good at or not have time to produce yourself.

Working towards things that make money can also mean working towards things where there is a demand. It makes the economy more efficient when the offer tries to match the demand. That's the point of having some freedom in a market instead of believing some political bureau can estimate it all from their ideological elite point of view. The trade off is that it requires proper regulation to prevent negative outcomes on people, which also not easy.

Too bad you're not touching the mixed economy point because it's a pretty good illustration about my point of the usefulness of some degree of free market and capitalism, since it comes from a country that calls itself socialist.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 13 points 2 days ago

I hate this either or crap. Few people want to live in 100% privately run or 100% government run society/economy.

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

I just heard a debate from someone that was adhering very closely to the Marx definition: “Under Communism, money would not exist”.

I can’t affirmatively say it wouldn’t work, but it is such a wild move from where we are, I can’t see pushing it on anyone with any assemblance of caution. Socialism can still be a sliding scale, and we can definitely turn it way up in a world where money exists, without any chance of causing harm.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago

see that is the thing. I have had people tell me marxist or true socialism you would still buy and sell things and then they repeat agnosium that the workers control the means of production. I find no one who is a big proponent can really say how its going to function except by good vibes.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

I'm all for world wide wealth caps. Of any one has a measured wealth of say 5 million or more, 100% of their income goes to taxes.

This way we can keep everything the same, we just cut off the excesses by putting some sane rules at the base of the system

Nobody can have a net worth of over 5M, meaning that nobody can become crazy powerful. Governments get huge influx of resources, which can we used for universal healthcare, education, etc. all while keeping the world pretty much the same

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Also, companies over a certain size should

not be able to buy other companies
change to a trade limited form
not be allowed acces to stock market

to ensure fair play, good working conditions and a long-term stable market.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago

Myself I would allow for people to be rich and would just use a very large tax rate. when takes went over 90% it effecitively stopped anything to large. It could actually be much smaller but has to apply to all income that comes in. I mean honestly things are so effed now that we likely need a 90+ percent until normalized.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 7 points 3 days ago

Socialism, democratic socialism or social democracy? It's quite different and the article does not seem to clarify if the poll ever mentioned that. I guess it is democratic socialism as promoted by the DSA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America#Ideology_and_political_positions
If it explained the difference, I wonder what the polls would show of approval difference between the three.

[-] yucandu@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I have a hard time understanding how a democratically elected government creating and operating a service to provide people with the essentials they need to survive isn't an example of the people owning the means of production.

Never forget that "socialism is just a transition to communism" was a thing Lenin said, not Marx.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 2 days ago

Afaiu, social democracy accepts some amount of free market and capitalism for economical efficiency, and democratic socialism accepts it but for a transitional period?
That's why I would say they are not the same as straight up Marxist revolution to seize the means of production. And I don't think much people support that in this poll, but it does not seem to detail it to confirm.

[-] Curious_Canid@piefed.ca 3 points 2 days ago

Those two look like a couple of kids who just pulled off a great prank. It makes me happy to see their smiles.

[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Makes me so happy to see what Bernie started coming into fruition. Also, makes me sad to know he won't be alive to see it all happen but what a legacy to leave behind.

[-] churrodestroyer@lemmy.zip -3 points 2 days ago

The only "poll" that matters is in November

this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026

203 points (100.0% liked)

Progressive Politics

5028 readers

542 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world