this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
320 points (96.5% liked)

politics

30324 readers
2258 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TwinTitans@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] jestho@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

Not good enough. Wake me up when its Scientific Socialism and Capitalism is dead.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

As in social security and other safety nets including retirement systems where my purchasing power doesn't dacay as I age until I'm not able to pay my mortgage or feed myself. Sounds like a plan.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 2 days ago

Good. Elected representatives funded by their constituents and others in the working class mean there's less of a risk they pull up the ladder behind them and fuck those who got them into power.

Doesn't mean this won't ever happen. That's why I said risk.

Long term goals are of course to ban Citizen's United, set a cap on money needed to campaign for an elected position, and pass Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).

[–] Microtonal_Banana@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 days ago

Not so scary if you do five minutes of research.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 28 points 3 days ago

They had decades to figure out how to unite their base. Obama and Bernie's popularity gave them the building blocks. They remained willfully ignorant because they like those corporate checks too much.

[–] treesquid@lemmy.world 38 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'd be okay with just democracy taking over the Democratic party

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 30 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Works for me. Give us universal basic income and universal healthcare. Take money out of politics. Give me an international high speed rail system. And paid by taxes higher education. Shut down the snooty universities.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What socialism is happening? Who is advocating workers controlling the means of production? All I see are social programs being touted.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (9 children)

Who is advocating workers controlling the means of production?

That would be communism, not socialism. Lennonist communism is where the workers control the means of production in a collectivist but decentralized manner (Stalinist communism is where the state (Stalin) controls the means of production). Socialism is where the capitalists are allowed to maximize profit all they want (hell they keep most of that under the socialist model), but society guarantees a minimal quality of life (the social bit) by taxing the capitalists to ensure a base-level of universal health-insurance and/or housing for the masses.

Basically, socialism is the logical conclusion of FDR's New Deal.

[–] insomniac20k@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Where are you getting this from?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] binux@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Where did you get this definition of socialism from? There’s no such thing as as socialism that allows for capitalist ownership of the means of production; if a socialist says it’s fine, they’re not a socialist.

As per Einstein himself (in his article entitled “Why Socialism?”):

In [a socialist economy], the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilised in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.

As you can see, as the means of production are owned and maintained by society itself in a socialist economy, there would be no possibility for any aspiring capitalist to accrue those means for themselves, and thereby maximize their own profit. In theory they would just be another worker without any special economical advantage over anyone else.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Socialism is 1950's conservatism now.

[–] LoafedBurrito@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I'd love to go socialist at this point. Capitalism has only fucked me over and over and over.

[–] fishy@lemmy.today 17 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I'm pretty wealthy and I want the USA to be way more socialist. I want medical for all, free daycare, food security for everyone, and a huge expansion of public education. Unfortunately about 50% of the population equates any socialism with Marxism and refuses to even hear how bad they're getting screwed by their Corp sponsored overlords.

I'm literally explaining social democracies vs Marxism to grown adults on nextdoor constantly. These knuckle draggers have the strongest political opinions and the weakest base of knowledge, it's infuriating. The 24 hour news cycle has turned our dumb neighbors into hateful mean little people.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] neuroneiro@lemmy.world 114 points 4 days ago (43 children)

While neither party can be trusted, I'll take socialism over fascism every damned time.

load more comments (43 replies)
[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

What if a foreign genocidal ethnostate takes over the Democratic Party?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] aarch0x40@piefed.social 101 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Socialist: We want you all to have free readily available healthcare

Republican Base: OVER OUR DEAD BODIES!!

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 43 points 4 days ago

*"OVER YOUR DEAD BODIES!"

ftfy

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 4 points 2 days ago
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (4 children)

The Democratic Party needs an anti-trump:

Someone who is the opposite of trump in every way...
Smart, wise, humble, charitable, brave, gregarious, kind, caring, socialist, democratic, and good.

Essentially, someone who embodies all the virtues that the hypocrites of the Christian Right eschew.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago
[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 45 points 3 days ago (5 children)

This would be far more accurately titled as 'returns to' given FDRs New Deal and the fact that 99% of socialist policies enacted over the last century are from the Democrats, instead of the inflammatory weasel-wording 'what if socialism takes over' like it's some kind of coup.

It might be some dumb play to drum up clicks from right-wing people who have never seen a Jacobin article I guess, but it puts off their base, and looking through the article.. it doesn't hide its socialist-positive bias at all even from the first few sentences, so I kinda doubt that intent. Just dumb.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 45 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If you think socialism is bad, you either are an evil piece of shit or ignorant of what socialism actually is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 58 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Then the USA would actually have two parties instead of one?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›