this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
103 points (94.8% liked)

Political Discussion and Commentary

814 readers
52 users here now

A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!

The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.

Content Rules:

  1. Self posts preferred.
  2. Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
  3. No spam or self promotion.
  4. Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.

Commentary Rules

  1. Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
  2. Stay on topic.
  3. Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
  4. Provide credible sources whenever possible.
  5. Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
  6. Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
  7. Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).

Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.

Partnered Communities:

Politics

Science

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Democrats are all upset over Mamdani because he’s a Democratic Socialist? Why? I don’t get it. What’s wrong with being a Democratic Socialist. It seems like a good thing to me. I thought Democrats embraced socialism.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JakenVeina@midwest.social 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I thought Democrats embraced socialism.

Democrats, the party and politicians, no. Not even close. As much as Fox News would love you to believe that.

Democrats, the voters, much more so. The majority of people in the US are like you. When presented with actual socialist policies, they're on board. But most people are also not engaged enough in politics to recognize that the Democratic party doesn't actually believe in socialist policies, they just vote for "the left". Or, they do recognize it, but feel that they have no better options.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

I mean, if all you do is vote on election day, you don't have better options.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 7 points 6 days ago

1 word: pluralities.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago

Democracy and Capitalism are inextricably linked in American politics. 'Democratic Capitalism' is the predominant social and economic culture.

Changing the capitalism part is as revolting as changing the democracy part.

And that's without trying to disambiguate Social Democracy from Democratic Socialism.

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 48 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I thought Democrats embraced socialism

There is no time in the history of the US Democratic Party that they embraced socialism as a party.

Democratic Socialism

This is not actually the same as socialism. It's confusing, I agree. The closest comparison is to "social democratic" parties in Europe, which offer expanded government programs but leave capitalism intact. The simplest definition of socialism is "when the workers own the means of production" (with "means of production" being things like factories, farms, etc. Any business, really). The Democratic Party has never pushed for that and Mamdani is not pushing for that now.

[–] sudo@programming.dev 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is not actually the same as socialism. It’s confusing, I agree. The closest comparison is to “social democratic” parties in Europe

Democratic Socialism is not Social Democracy. Democratic Socialism advocates for real socialism through the existing democratic institutions, whereas Social Democracy only advocates for softer capitalism. Particularly, DemSoc's view capitalism as fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

Now there's plenty of things wrong with Democratic Socialism, but the main one is you're playing by the rules written by the capitalists and are assuming the capitalists will follow those rules.

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

DSA's national website is ambiguous. It says: " ...democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society. " "A real voice in" is not the same as ownership of or control over.

However, DSA (both national and local ones) has a number of different movements within it. Some are social democratic, some are authoritarian socialist, some are libertarian socialist, and so on. In the context of Mamdani and Sanders, Democratic Socialism's social democratic wing is probably the movement having the biggest impact so far. I do hope the libertarian socialst/anarchist movements within DSA ultimately come to influence it the most!

[–] sudo@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The DSA was founded by Marxists and has always been socialist. If you show up at a meeting and say 'I don't think we need to overthrow capitalism' you will be laughed out of the room. I've seen it happen.

The libertarian wing of the DSA doesn't caucus within DSA because they got completely shut down in either the 2017 or 2019 confrenece. Everyone else actually learned something from the failures of Occupy.

What goes forthe Social Democrat wing of DSA is the faction most connected to Labor unions in the DSA, namely Bread and Roses. The rest are either Trotskyite or ML. There are plenty of anarchists still but they don't bother with any national caucus. Besides, its not like anarchists aren't also reading from spooky "authoritarians" like Lenin and Mao. If you want to overthrow capitalism you should read up on the people who've actually done it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kintarian@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I see. I like the idea of a mix of social programs and regulated capitalism and I feel like capitalism has run amok for far too long. I’m sure you all understand it better than I do.

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We all start somewhere! My politics were more like yours a while back, but now I would disagree that it is possible to keep capitalism regulated. Since then, I have come to understand that the basic drives of capitalism, especially the one that forces every capitalist to increase the amount of profit they get and the rate of increase of their profit, would just make them throw money into politics and overcome any possible regulations.

Keep reading and you'll get explanations of how capitalism works and you can decide for yourself whether regulation is possible or not.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 39 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Swede here, if we compare the two political parties in the US to the Swedish political spectrum, the Republicans would be far to the right of even Sverigedemokraterna, the Democrats would be center-right.

What the US calls the left side of the political compass is nowhere near the actual left on a proper political compass.

The US badly needs a new voting system, the current one promotes stagnation and I can't see it ever having more than two realistic choices again.

[–] Kintarian@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I wish we could add a progressive party, labor party, and the like. The two party system is broken.

[–] witty_username 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I totally agree with you. I'd like to add that, as I understand it, Mamdani ended up the democratic candidate because of the voting method (ranked choice).
I think this is precisely why current political interests are so opposed to changing the first-past-the-post method for ranked choice voting. Let alone proportional representation.
It also shows how effective and necessary it is to change the voting system! Imo this is what the 'no kings' movement should focus on above all else

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago

Yeah FPTP is increadibly harmfull to a democracy, it will effectively remove any small parties over time, it will also promote results manipulation like Jerrymandering.

Get rid of FPTP and smaller parties will pop up like crazy all over the US.

Compared to Germany, the republicans are far right like our AfD... Your ICE is the dream of the AfD.

And the democrats are more "economy-liberal" instead of actually liberal. Also, they contain much of the CDU (conservative) energy, a bit of green party energy and a bit of SPD (social democrats) energy....

[–] sudo@programming.dev 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Democrats aren't socialist but there are socialists who are democrats. The majority of the party are beholden to big donors just like the Republicans and view anything even remotely socialist as not only a threat to their donors but a threat to their position in the party.

The democrats are melting down over Mamdani because he might cause a wave of socialists primarying them.

They are also melting down because the main attack they used against Mamdani - calling him an antisemite when he's really just an anti-zionist - had zero affect. This is huge because it's been a tried and true tactic to use against socialists most famously in the UK against Corbyn.

[–] sad_detective_man@leminal.space 15 points 1 week ago

the public is finally evolving past not knowing the difference between anti semitism and anti zionism

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

The DNC are just republican lite, madini upsets thier status quo, aka center right, so not even on the left. the voters may support DS, but the politicians dont at all, all that money that comes with being like the gop is too god to miss.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ramsgrl909@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

America is a capitalist nation. The Republicans openly support it. The Democrats less openly support it.

Socialism breaks the mold, it evens the playing field for everyone - people part of the establishment will always oppose it.

[–] hexonxonx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago

There's nothing preventing capitalism from being socialist, except right-wing propaganda.

Capitalism is a (very powerful) financial tool for societies. It can help them prosper or it can be abused and turned to fascism.

The key is to keep the Capitalists out of government to prevent legislative capture by corporations.

Look at the Scandinavian countries to see successful social-democratic countries that have embraced capitalism without frogmarching into fascism like the US. Sure, they're not without their problems, but I'd rather have their problems.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

America is a capitalist nation. The Republicans ~~openly~~ rabidly support it. The Democrats less ~~openly~~ rabidly support it.

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Are you joking or seriously asking, I am not joking it is hard to tell genuinely.

Simply put, he's not on their team and as mayor of New York it's a good amount of power and if he wins there it'll encourage more and suddenly they'll have less chums in positions they like and won't get what they want done

[–] Kintarian@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I’m serious and not very savvy when it comes to politics. I feel like the establishment is out of touch with regular people. I wouldn’t mind if more socialists got elected. I would have voted for Sanders. Also, it’s hard to tell just what the establishment actually wants half the time. I don’t know, it just seems like democrats should support more socialist ideas.

[–] zildjiandrummer1@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

The establishment has always, and will always want, to get and keep more money and power. That's it. When in doubt, no matter what the surface level issues are that they say they "support" (to get people to vote for them), always think back to how this or that tactic will get them more money and power.

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

https://www.versobooks.com/products/324-the-abcs-of-socialism?_pos=2&_psq=socialism&_ss=e&_v=1.0 you might want to try this as a gentle introduction to socialism. It's a big topic, but you can start here and then look for the next book that interests you if you like.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

For generations, Americans have been raised to believe that socialism and communism are the same thing, and that they're not only bad policy, but actively un-American and evil.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] Kintarian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There again. What's wrong with being woke?

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Woke. Look up the definition. It means being aware, awake, tuned in to reality.

That can be unappealing to many people. Mostly ignorant, lazy, arrogant, selfish people who haven't had the need to consider the existence of well-being of any other person but themselves and MAYBE their direct family in their entire lives.

Hope that clears things up!

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world -2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Right, but that's not the general social understanding of what the word means. Trying to save "woke" from the cultural connotations it gained after becoming a word known to the mainstream is a lost cause.

[–] hexonxonx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's EXACTLY what the general understanding is. You just need to think about it for a few seconds.

Some people just don't want to or even have the ability to think and just parrot what their peers say, or they're just bigoted pieces of shit and this lets them get away with it.

Anyone complaining about "woke" is a bigot. Call them out.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

You are misunderstanding me.

Sure, perhaps that is definition used by those who adopt the term.

The problem is that the culture outside this small group has agreed that the term refers to people who are insufferable and holier-than-thou.

I know people who care about these sorts of things. They talk about social inequality. They vote for politicians who want to reform the system. They work in nonprofits to make the world a better place. They attend conferences to learn about the newest discoveries in intersectional studies.

None of them call themselves "woke", or use the word at all. Why? Well because the word and its cultural associations are cringy. They want to be seen as sensible, reasonable people who have realistic solutions to real problems - using the word "woke" would undermine this goal. It doesn't matter what the actual, literal definition of the word is - simply using it would undermine their credibility, since it would indicate a lack of social acuity. It's like someone using the term "retarded" to refer to someone with a developmental disability. Even if they use the word in a completely kind and clinically appropriate way, their general credibility is undermined because polite society has determined that it is an inappropriate word to use.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

I feel like there are some seriously stupid people here who cannot understand sarcasm.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

It's DEI or something

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 14 points 1 week ago

Helping people who aren't me is woke.

[–] morphballganon@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 1 week ago

Every transaction has two sides.

If a politician says we can't afford something, what that really means is they see they would be paying for it, not being paid for it.

In short, current admin is corrupt.

[–] danzabia@infosec.pub 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Democrats, democratic socialism and socialism are all different things. The Democratic party has different objectives from Democratic socialists. Perhaps it would be helpful to label Democrats as the "center moderate" party, democratic socialists as "left and the Republican party as "fascism".

[–] Kintarian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

I guess I’m closer to the left then

[–] Shotgun_Alice@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Liberals hate progressive more than they hate the GOP. But this way Democrats keep saying every election is the most important election in our lifetime. They still expect the vote blue no matter who, so Democrats want nothing more than to have the progressive fall in line.

I hate it here. I want off this ride.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The quick answer is that the Democratic Party isn't socialist. Socialists work against the interests of capitalists and guess who the Democratic Party takes a lot of money from? The few socialists or democratic socialists that try to run through the Democratic party are fighting an uphill battle and are only doing so mostly because the two party system makes it impossible for 3rd parties to win in most cases.

This has always been the case, but what might cause this confusion is that the Democrats appeared to favor more socially oriented policies in the mid 20th century with The New Deal and The Great Society. But the thing to understand about that is:

  • Despite creating some social spending programs, they kept capitalists in power.
  • They never stopped doing the other part of capitalism: Imperialism.
  • There was a lot of pressure from outside the government. Unions were stronger. The Great Depression was the greatest crisis capitalism had seen up until that point, and the success of communist revolutions in other countries could have shown the American working class a different path forward.

In the 90s, with the Soviet Union dissolved and the power of unions thoroughly gutted, the Democrats under Clinton did a realignment to the right. Clinton famously passed welfare "reform" (read: gutting it) calling it "an end to welfare as we know it." Clinton entered us into NAFTA, a trade deal that helped facilitate corporations moving production to other countries to exploit cheaper labor. He passed the Crime Bill which is credited with being a huge contributor to mass incarceration. Etc.

Since then Democrats have looked a lot more like Clinton than FDR, and even FDR wasn't a socialist. So yeah, the people who helped take things away from the working class aren't super thrilled about someone who wants to take some of that stuff back for us.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago
[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 1 week ago

He might like do a thing that helps the peasants... Or even hurt the parasite.

Who knows but when you end counter this many enemies on both sides, you know this bro is going the right way. NYC politics is a corruption galore though. He is about to finding out how impotent that can make him. Hope fully he can do something to kick off a wave across US.

People haven't gained the full class consciousness yet but post covid fuckeninng has shook the normie to the core and they asking questions that make daddy very uncomfortable

load more comments
view more: next ›