All of the major candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal, which espouses a massive economic program where the "public receives" "ownership stakes." It also calls for a WWII-level economic mobilization premised on wide-scale central planning.
"Socialism as a concept is open to many interpretations. Gallup was describing socialism in questions asked in the 1940s in terms of government ownership of businesses -- something that Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and most other left-leaning Democratic candidates have not advocated. Instead, socialism today seems to embody sets of programs by which the government helps regulate and in some instances run and pay for social programs focused on basic population needs in health, education, housing and employment."
So not destroying capitalism but rather trying to blunt some of the sharp edges of capitalism. Nobody is trying to replace Google, GM, or JP Morgan with a government run company.
As a purely technical matter socialism--especially when juxtaposed with capitalism, as in the Pew Gallup poll--means government ownership of businesses and central planning of economic activity. The DSA, which Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are affiliated with, do advocate for public ownership of businesses: https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism...
> Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives.
> "I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries," Sanders told the Burlington Free Press in October 1976, at age 35
Given that socialism has been utterly discredited in Europe over the last couple of decades, groups like DSA try to obscure their views by equating socialism with the capitalist welfare states of Europe. But: https://mises.org/power-market/swedish-ex-prime-minister-reb...
> Prime Minister of Sweden from 1991 to 1994, Carl Bildt, took to Twitter to warn Sanders that socialism is not the key to creating a great society as he and Ocasio-Cortez seem to think.
This is not just a matter of terminology and semantics. Over the last 20 years, Europeans have aggressively embraced market policies. They're all aggressively cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. They've privatized state-owned businesses and deregulated industries. Sweden has had school vouchers for decades, and the subway in Stockholm is privately operated. The tax system in Sweden is remarkably flat, and the tax burden is borne primarily by the middle class. (I.e. the middle class pays for its own robust welfare system.)
Those are not the policies espoused by Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders. Whereas Sweden has school vouchers, they're proposing curbing charter schools. Neither are proposing to privatize operation of New York's or DC's failing subway systems, to match Stockholm's model. Whereas Sweden's taxes are already less progressive than the U.S.'s (Sweden's top tax rate starts at $70,000), Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are proposing to shift even more of the tax burden to the rich, while Sweden is cutting taxes for the rich. While even Republicans, much less Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, are unwilling to touch Social Security, Sweden has moved to a partially privatized defined-contribution system. Whereas Sweden has a carbon tax, Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders are trying to address climate change through central planning. (The Green New Deal, for example, would involve taxing tens of trillions of dollars out of the private economy, and reallocating it to centrally-planned, government-directed economic activity.)
If you read through the Green New Deal, it doesn't resemble the market-oriented approaches of modern Scandinavia. It's all about government-directed economic activity, guaranteed jobs, etc. That's old-school socialism.
You moved from describing the Democrats to describing the Democratic Socialists of America. Those are two very different groups. As a Democrat, I find the DSA rather obnoxious, because they perpetually run NIMBY candidates here in San Francisco who favor the interests of rich homeowners over renters. (Even in SF, the DSA finds itself unable to win anything more than supervisor seats; the mayor and state representatives are mainstream social democrats.)
And I think you're reading way too much into those polls. If you were to ask me whether I like capitalism and whether I like socialism, as a social democrat I would probably say yes to both, I guess†? But I wouldn't favor wide-ranging nationalization of industries. I don't see how you can say "I like capitalism"--as a majority of Democrats do, according to Pew--and favor that. I mean, heck, more Democrats say they view conservatives positively (more than the reverse on the Republican side) than view socialism positively and capitalism negatively. The two Democratic front-runners are Biden, who represents a continuation of Obama's moderate economic policies, and Warren, who famously said she's a "capitalist to her bones".
† I also have to wonder how much tribalism there is in the socialism answer. Republicans have spent a lot of time applying the label to things that are obviously not socialist, like the ACA. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Democrats are saying yes to the question about "socialism" really to express their support for Democratic policies that have been smeared as "socialist", rather than anything having to do with central planning. You see this tribalism frequently on the Republican side, with significant numbers of Republicans saying, for example, that they believe that Trump had larger inauguration crowd sizes than Obama did--which of course they don't really believe, but they say yes to such questions to express their support for Trump.
The Democratic party you think you belong to isn't the Democratic party that is today. Far from it. And that's the problem.
As a classical liberal I identified myself with the Democratic party far more so than the GOP on many layers. What is out there today has nothing to do with what this party was about 30 years ago. Today, they are dangerous. The ideas they are pushing are destructive. If they gain overwhelming power they will destroy this nation.
I've seen this playbook before in Latin America --many times-- it doesn't end well. It's about to be played yet again in Argentina with the new government that was just elected. There are people already trying to figure out how to get the hell out before the mutation into Venezuela sets in.
You say you are a Democrat. You are on HN. I somehow doubt the total lack of mathematical honesty in a ridiculous 52 trillion dollar disaster of a healthcare plan would not cause you projectile vomiting. These people are dangerous. They actually believe this stuff. And if they gain power we are all going to suffer for it.
The proper context is external to the US: China. They are laughing their asses off right now and just hoping people like Warren or Bernie ascend to power. If they get another eight years of unimpeded growth they will ascend to the first economy of the world and be unstoppable. There are very few industries left in the US and Europe that they can't absorb. They would love for the US to go full-tilt left and, as a result, cause severe damage to it's economy. It would clear the path to supremacy. And then we get the reality of a world led by China, with hooks into absolutely everyone.
> I've seen this playbook before in Latin America --many times-- it doesn't end well.
The good news for the US is that they don't have an imperialist neighbour who's going to crush their economy and support a coup to shut down any socialist threat to their imperialism. Because that's what happened all the times in Latin America.
> The proper context is external to the US: China. They are laughing their asses off right now and just hoping people like Warren or Bernie ascend to power. If they get another eight years of unimpeded growth they will ascend to the first economy of the world and be unstoppable […].
That's a really strange thing for a “classical liberal” to say. This is straight from the hardcore neoconservative narrative.
> wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Democrats are saying yes to the question about "socialism" really to express their support for Democratic policies that have been smeared as "socialist", rather than anything having to do with central planning.
While most democrats aren't actually supporting socialism, interestingly enough, socialism doesn't necessarily have something to do with social planning either: socialism is about getting rid of capitalism, an economic system where a few people owns the means of production and “steal” the work of the working class (note that this has nothing to do with free market). You can achieve socialism by different mean. The Marxist-Leninist way, with all-powerful state and central planning is one, but the anarchist way with workers self-managing is another. The first kind dominated the 20th century (and they slayed thousands of anarchists in the process) but nowadays most socialists (in the western world at least) belong to the second category. Noam Chomsky is a good example of these people.
You can't "get rid" of capitalism without involving some sort of central planning. If anything, the original proponents of socialism including Marx never supposed that capitalism would be something to "get rid of" in any way; they thought socialism would only become viable when capitalism had reached its highest stage of development, and then the "transition" into socialism would be relatively natural and painless.
"Workers self-managing" industries works really well if the industries have low capital intensity. Law firms might be one example of that. Not so much otherwise, because workers at any one firm don't really want to deal with highly-uncertain capital investments in the first place (that would mean keeping all their eggs in one basket!); they'd much rather shed that risk to outsiders.
OP asked me to name "the Democrats trying to replace capitalism." I think it's fair to say that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez and other DSA-affiliated Democrats are trying to do that. That is not an assertion that Democrats as a whole want to do that.
Only 47% of Democrats have a positive view of capitalism, versus 57% having a positive view of socialism. That's shocking for the party of Bill Clinton and Barak Obama. There was a time when socialism was a dirty word in America, and it was for a good reason. When my dad was born in what was then Pakistan, India had similar per-capita GDP to South Korea. Today, thanks to flirtations with socialism, India is still quite poor, while South Korea is as rich as France: https://reason.com/2006/06/06/the-rise-and-fall-of-indian-so....
> We need a smaller, more effective, more efficient, less bureaucratic government that reflects our time-honored values.
> We support government policies that encourage private sector investment and innovation to create a pro-growth economic climate, like a permanent research and development tax credit.
> Today's Democratic Party knows that the era of big government is over. Big bureaucracies and Washington solutions are not the real answers to today's challenges. We need a smaller government . . . and we must have a larger national spirit. Government's job should be to give people the tools they need to make the most of their own lives. Americans must take the responsibility to use them, to build good lives for themselves and their families. Personal responsibility is the most powerful force we have to meet our challenges and shape the future we want for ourselves, for our children, and for America.
> Welfare reform. Today's Democratic Party knows there is no greater gap between mainstream American values and modern American government than our failed welfare system. When Bill Clinton became President, the welfare system undermined the very values -- work, family, and personal responsibility -- that it should promote. The welfare system should reflect those values: we want to help people who want to help themselves and their children.
> We have worked hard over the last four years to rein in big government, slash burdensome regulations, eliminate wasteful programs, and shift problem-solving out of Washington and back to people and communities who understand their situations best.
> In the last four years, President Clinton, working with the National Performance Review chaired by Vice President Gore, has cut the federal government by almost 240,000 positions, making the smallest federal government in 30 years. We did it the right way, treating workers with respect. The federal government is eliminating 16,000 pages of outdated and unnecessary regulations, has abolished 179 programs and projects, and saved taxpayers billions of dollars.
Watching the debates it's impossible to see any hint of that party.
> The two Democratic front-runners are Biden, who represents a continuation of Obama's moderate economic policies, and Warren, who famously said she's a "capitalist to her bones".
Given how quickly the party has distanced itself from Obama's moderate-conservative economic policies, I'm not sure how great I feel about 76-year-old Joe Biden was the firewall between me and 1960s-style European socialism.
> Now name the Democrats trying to replace capitalism...I'll wait.
That's the wrong question or perspective. What they are trying to do is cause enough damage that the only option left will be for people to depend on government support, jobs, etc. That grows government large and ultimately fundamentally changes this nation to the core.
You can't say "let's replace capitalism"...because you just can't do it that way. California is a perfect example of the kind of planned manipulation I am talking about. We are paying incredible amounts of money for our fuel. Much more than in other parts of the nation. There's an agenda here to push everything related to climate change and "green", whether it makes sense or not. So our roads are not maintained, our fuel taxes go through the roof and politicians ignore cries for help. Their objective is to force everyone onto some mythical form of public transportation that can never work in CA, but that's not going to stop them. They close entire road lanes to create space for a few bikes and create massive traffic jams in the process. So it isn't about coming right out and saying "we want to replace capitalism", it's about having that as a plan and then plotting a series of measures that will cause so much damage that, over time, that will be the result.
Let's forget the socialist label for a moment.
Here's reality: Not one of the people proposing these extreme ideas has ever lived, and much less managed, anything even remotely close to what they are proposing to do.
Let's assume for a moment that they sincerely believe --not know, but believe-- these ideas are good. People like AOC have been indoctrinated by schooling into pretty much that world view. She and the others have never actually lived in the kind of society they so enthusiastically champion.
It stands to reason that, if one is going to push for certain ideas the sensible thing to do is look at history and try to understand if these ideas, when applied, produced results at least equivalent to and ideally superior to the status quo.
Well, we have history on these ideas. Lots of it. Across multiple continents, cultures, nations and time. And there isn't a single success story anyone can float to the surface. Quite to the contrary, the common denominator is that the result of adopting these ideologies is disastrous. Poverty and misery increase. Economic development collapses. Social inequality increases. Government grows large. Populations grow dependent. And darkness takes hold.
We have people pushing for the equivalent of coffee enemas to cure cancer. It might sound interesting, but there isn't one single bit of evidence that it does as promised and lots of evidence showing it causes harm. To make things even more interesting, those pushing for coffee enemas have never had one themselves and, instead, are the beneficiaries of everything they say is bad in our current system.
As I have said many times: This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of history. These people are dangerous.
All of the major candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal, which espouses a massive economic program where the "public receives" "ownership stakes." It also calls for a WWII-level economic mobilization premised on wide-scale central planning.