Socialism's Positive Rating Tops 40% for First Time
news.gallup.com
news.gallup.com
I believe this, which I supposed makes me a Graeberite. Graeberian? Graeberista?
This comment is not grounded in facts and reality. Accomplishments listed at https://www.mamdanibulletin.com/policy-tracker, cataloged by month, updated monthly. Update your priors.
PR and communications is a necessary component to demonstrate the value being delivered to your constituents, but the work must still be done. Mamdani is using his position and tenure to prove that Democratic Socialism can and does work, in one of the largest cities in the world, for other potential candidates, and for the voters who might support them. He froze the rent for over 2 million renters, and has recovered in ~$130M in wage theft for delivery workers from DoorDash alone. He's implemented universal childcare for 2-year-olds. He has established enforcement against deceptive and abusive landlord practices, hidden junk fees and misleading charges, and illegal auto-renewals and subscriptions.
"Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast." This will be the case study for every mayoral election over the next decade, and who to vote for: putting promise into practice.
(as of this comment, Mamdani polls at ~69% for favorability)
https://sri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/SNY0826-Rel...
I thought that Mamdani would set back the cause of Democratic Socialism by 100 years, because surely, after 2 weeks, everybody would just start hating him and the mainstream of both parties could point to him as an obvious warning.
But he's the most popular politician in the country. That doesn't happen by good P.R. It happens when that pothole which has been there for 3 mayors suddenly gets fixed.
There is only a finite number of times you can see:
1. A pothole get fixed Mamdani has repaired over 200,000 of them.
2. Your landlord finally repairs that leaky roof. Mamdani has had landlords do $34 million worth of repairs and upkeep they were legally obliged to do.
3. Or Door Dash finally paid you for those hours you worked....
...yeah, that only happens a finite number of times before you ask yourself? Why didn't any of the other mayors do that? What were the other mayers doing with that 8.5% income tax I pay to live in this city?
And from there it's just a short step to asking "why has government taken all my money in taxes and given me nothing in return?"
It's not P.R. man. It is an existential threat to the mainstream politicians.
As I say to my left-leaning friends: hey, you know what we should socialize? The money supply. (My right-leaning friends aren't ready for that conversation yet.)
But... yes... it would be great if enough people knew about Henry George and Georgism that the Gallup people thought it was worthwhile to put it on a survey.
And allow me to bemoan the current state of affairs where the definitions of capitalism and socialism used by most Americans are defined by tribal communities whose (sub)social order depends on the in-crowd toeing a particular party line with respect to whom is allowed to extract rent, set prices, rent and tax rates. Which is to say, if you're comfortably making seven figures on your constellation of payday loan offices, you probably a fan of the status quo.
For my right-wing nut-job friends, remember, there are "socialist" countries like Sweden, Denmark and (arguably) Canada which are perfectly pleasant. Venezuela and Cuba's problems aren't due to their "socialist" nature, but to wide-spread corruption and oligarchy. Keynes (and even Marx) had interesting things to say, though doctrinaire adoption of political and economic philosophy from previous centuries is not likely a good idea.
For my left-wing pinko friends, remember, not all "capitalism" is regressive. Even places like Sweden, Denmark and Canada have a form of capitalism despite being mildly constrained by collective action. Hayak had interesting things to say, though doctrinaire adoption of political and economic philosophy from previous centuries is not likely a good idea.
Stop me before I mention Modern Monetary Theory.
Au contraire! Please continue!
Here's his latest video: https://youtu.be/mKWfEQlcDoU
I encourage everyone to read about it if you're a person who absorbs info via text better.
Here's the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
It's worth a read. I wish there was a single volume "MMT for Dummies," but to get the full read on it, you currently have to read a bunch of different texts. I like the Wikipedia article because they include some of the critiques as well as the supporting arguments.
My take on economics is there are few theories that are universally applicable. Keynes is applicable to some situations as is Hayak and even E. F. Schumacher. The hard part is figuring out which theory is good for which situation (and how to tell if your assumption about applicability was wrong.)
What I find surprising about modern Americans is they really want to elect someone who has all the answers. FDR was somewhat famous for f*king up a couple times and changing course when the data didn't match the theory. We're so tribal these days we refuse to admit that even good leaders can get it wrong once and again and having an honest discussion about why the error occurred and how they're going to fix it might lead to better outcomes.
I am reminded of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs' quote "Act like a dumbsh*t and they'll treat you like an equal." Perhaps I should run for office on the platform of "I'm probably as dumb as you are, which makes me smarter than my opponents."
Got my vote!
Now that inflation is high and MMT says "increase taxes / reduce spending", it sounds far more reasonable.
I don’t think the people that were appalled at loose “fiscal”—more specifically targeted—policy from Congress as a substitute for loose “monetary” policy from the Fed (under the MMT model that the real constraint on “fiscal” policy are its monetary effects rather than fiscal balance) would be any happier with tight “fiscal” policy substituting for tight “monetary” policy from the Fed.
I don’t think they would be happy for the “who pays the bill” when tightening is needed to be one members of Congress have to defend to their constituents anymore than they want “where does stimulus go” to be.
They may like selective appeals to constraints to avoid discussing the specific merits of spending proposals they don’t like, and dislike losing the myth of fiscal constraints, but they still don't want to subject the distributional impact of m monetary tightening to real policy debate.
But it'll be different this time! Right?!
"Just off the top of your head, would you say you have a positive or negative image of each of the following? (Small business, Free enterprise, Capitalism, Socialism, Big business)"
So these terms are left as self-explanatory. In the US, "socialism" covers a huge amount of ground (from any government program at all, all the way to Soviet style communism.) So who knows what items people were picking.
One thing that is interesting, look at the gender and age splits in the above link for "socialism" and "capitalism" - 15-20 point divide between genders overall, and I bet the split is even more stark among young people.
And an interesting investigation into the origin of the quote at https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/
- Approximately 2.1 million landlords rented out 348 million acres of farmland.
- 87% of landlords did not farm the land themselves.
- Rental income, farmland values, and debt levels have all increased over the past decade, with rented land and buildings now valued at $1.7 trillion.
- The average principal landlord is 69 years old, and landlords age 75 and older control about 40% of rented acres and rental income.
- Most non-operating landlords acquired their land through inheritance or trusts.
- Operating landlords primarily purchased their farmland.
- Financially, landlords received $34.1 billion in rental income while carrying $50.7 billion in debt.
Federal farm subsidies: What the data says - https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da... - June 23rd, 2025
- Farm subsidies have added an average of $17.6 billion to farm income each year from 1933 to 2024, adjusted for inflation.
We take taxes from the top 40% of Americans, and funnel it to farm landlords to harvest corn to burn in cars as ethanol, broadly speaking.
https://www.history.com/articles/feudalism
Feudalism was a medieval system in which land was exchanged for loyalty and military service between lords and peasants.
I guess the more things change the more they stay the same...
In these demon's blanket national insecurity, this is their chief enemy? Their chief rallying cry, what they put themselves in opposition to? The only politics they talk? Must be something there!
For what it's worth, apart from the migrant scare, PiS, the far-right friends of Trump, made a comeback in Poland in 2016 by promising and delivering 500+ which was an unconditional payout for parents.
And what Trump did give Americans? Half-assed tariffs which destroyed many businesses and individuals, and which were overturned anyway. Destruction of many jobs in the federal sector. Expensive fuel. And so on.
Nobody does that. If it seems to you like they are, then that tells you that those people see their interests differently than you do. And it should be a sign that perhaps you don't understand their interests as well as you think you do, because odds are that people understand what's in their best interest better than outsiders.
Immigrants voting for harsh immigration policies and supporting ICE finding themselves and their family members targeted for deportation. People supporting data centers finding energy costs and noise pollution skyrocketing. Women and minorities voting for Trump and facing the elimination of womens' rights and their removal from the historical record and employment due to "anti-DEI" initiatives. Farmers facing the effects of Trump's trade war. Workers opposing any form of welfare, social safety net or workers' rights, even as they're laid off.
Go check out r/LeopardsAteMyFace, there are plenty of examples of people voting against their interests. People vote against their interests all the time because they've been indoctrinated and vote according to ideology, not rational self-interest.
Don't go check out r/LeopardsAteMyFace, they ban left of center examples of people voting against their interests. People vote against their interests all the time because they've been indoctrinated and vote according to ideology, not rational self-interest.
79 percent of U.S. adults said Social Security benefits shouldn’t be reduced in any way according to Pew. 87 percent of Americans agree that Social Security should remain a priority for the nation no matter the state of budget deficits, according to NIRS.
66 percent believe the government should be responsible for ensuring Americans have health coverage (90 percent for Democrats and left-leaners), according to Pew.
The result is what you would expect. Here's the article from the AEI, which I'm surprised waded into the mess as they're partially responsible for the confusion. Maybe they're gloating?
https://www.aei.org/commentary/obamacare-vs-affordable-care-...
See Joseph McCarthy, HUAC, Hollywood blacklists, J. Edgar Hoover’s COINTELPRO and other domestic surveillance programs for a small slice of anti-communist efforts in the Cold War US.
Lots of people detest socialism until you show them how they’re already benefitting from it. I’m not even really pro-socialism, except in the simplified case where you have a number line with “capitalism” on one end, “communism” on the other, and “socialism” as the range in the middle. I definitely wouldn’t want to live on either end of that spectrum, and a mixed economy where private enterprise handles wants with a government handling needs for those who can’t do it on their own — i.e. socialism — is a reasonable alternative.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/243362/meani...
Note, this article is from 2018 and the situation hasn't exactly improved...
Sweden is not socialist, it's capitalist. A large portion of the budget goes to welfare programs, just like the USA.
You mean soviet-like socialism. Socialism is older and broader than bolchevism.
[1] https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/slayer/fictionalreality.html
If you look at what Mamdani, arguably the face of American Socialism, is doing in NYC, it's basically deciding to hold businesses accountable for breaking laws and noticing where markets have failed to provide core needs in the city.
That's not the definition of socialism in any case.
Please, Mister or Missues Vanguard of Leftist Vocabulary, enlighten us on what "Socialism" really means.
Except not equality - stepping stones. Socialism is supposed to lead to communism, per Marx. That’s not a right wing take, unless you consider Karl Marx a conservative.
Notably, the definition given by Marx and other 19th century socialists (worker controlled production) is doesn't even have to involve government or the state at all. It just came to mean that once proximity to power came into play. The "soviet" word merely meant local worker councils, not a state form, for example. But once the Bolsheviks took state power, the power of the actual soviets was successively demolished in favour of a centralized one party state.
So, notably: Self-called "Marxist-Leninists" in the USSR, and Social Democrats (or "democratic socialists" in the US), and Right-wingers all far prefer the term to mean "government controls things." The latter because they can then point fingers and call things authoritarian (but somehow exempt corporate power from critique).
But it is not at all clear that 19th century socialists .. from Proudhon through Marx etc -- who coined the term -- meant this at all.
Also this hard line between "communism" and "socialism" is fictitious and very schematic. All communists call themselves socialists, and almost none of them agree on what that means.
Social democrats trying desperately to sound respectable clearly want a nice hard line there. But they also have no intention of bringing about socialism.
You are a rare person.
Leninism ≠ Stalinism ≠ Maoism ≠ Socialism ≠ Communism.
These are overloaded terms at this point which is part of the reason so few actually comprehend.
Even Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism can mean different things depending on the context and interpretation which is another part of the collective confusion.
If we had clear definitions, it *might* irradicate the confusion, but I don't see that happening in the forseeable future.
There's too much at stake for every involved party to clear things up.
this is perhaps the smallest of all possible reasons that "few actually comprehend" :) yes, the left is good at eating itself, but that self-destruction is not without a lot of external assistance!
Not all socialism is communism, but all communism is socialism.
In many cases it very much is the definition of socialism.
Thats not socialism. It's vaguely a redistribution layer on top of capitalism. The article contrasts S. with C. which is also wrong.
Eg. inheritance tax does not restrict free enterprise, but the devil is in the details.
What makes you think that they aren't?
Socialism is a broad collection of ideas around wealth distribution with alot of degrees of freedom, which leaves enough room to confuse ot with communism, i guess.
Are you sure you understand what you are arguing?
>Thats not socialism
That is literally the most bare and core definition of socialism.
> characterized by social ownership of the means of production
... incorrect propaganda on the wikipedia.
In the german article, its more accurate "there is not clear definition".
Its a familiy of ideas around wealth distribution with many degrees of freedom. Its not incompatible to capitalism, like communism is. I gues the eng wiki article is meant trigger stereotypes with "means of production".
When you think the "survival of the fittest" nature analogy of capitalism further, then there should be no inheritance. All value that you have accumulated over your life (nutrition) is redistributed on your death into the environment, so in that analogy, capitalism shouldnt allow inheritance at all.
There are many more options of wealth distribution, which effect more wealthy people than the working class and in small-ish quantitiea, all of them are compatible with capitalism. Again, the devil is in the details.
I want to understand what you're saying if you'd give me a few moments of further explanation of your claim/argument
Today, it is self evident, that regulation and taxation policies in many (all?) capitalistic countries had the opposite effect than narrowing the wealth gap. In the past years of crisis and even before, the rich were getting overproportionally richer than poorer milieus, leading to even more "democratic" represetation (money in politics) and them shaping the system even further to their advantage.
Today, it is more lucrative to put your money into the stock market than to start a business, eg. a small restaurant. This is undesireable and a result of a lack of taxation/regulation. I think, the US suffers the most of a financialized economy, where dilluted economists can point to GDP and say, "look, its all good". Its like a hypothermic body reaction, where blood gets stripped from the limbs to keep the organs going and the doctor says, "look, the heart still beats fine". The lack of public funding everywhere and the widening wealth gap are self evident and related.
You might think now, what does this have to do with socialism. The inheritance tax, naturalistic decomposition and the blood examples were about access, or redistribution of a resource that is currently elsewhere. I feel strange explaining this obvious imbalance and broad socialistic solutions to US americans and get hit with so much weird feedback. Socialism is kind of the vague middle ground in a capitalism-communism spectrum, but its also not only in the economic domain (inheritance tax), which means it is obviously compatible with capitalism. And yes, the english wiki article is factually incorrect, socialism is a family of ideas with a common goal but without a clear definition. With that angle, even the US is a socialist country, but this might never penetrate some red-voting veteran check receivers. This internalized propaganda of "socialism is bad and anti-capitalistic" combined with the obliviousness towards current problems of capitalism is frightening. I shouldnt be texting that much about obvious and basic facts.
Modern socialism: "You'll own nothing and be happy".
That was said first at the World Economic Forum in Davos, in what many people consider the heart of modern capitalism.
Capitalism says nothing about your right to own stuff, it is only concerned with putting the means of production into private hands. And indeed, most humans alive today have nothing to their name, and the entire economic apparatus belongs to a tiny minority that functionally owns the world, and doesn't have to answer to anyone.
Unfortunately, when you've got 2 choices, one being "Let's round up the pinkos" and the other being "Nothing will fundamentally change", the actual Leftists have to choose the lesser of two evils.
In the most recent years I feel the same about our lefts.
But imho left/right don't make any sense any more and have very little connection to their historical roots.
Look at how the conservative party went into ballooning the debt and spending, something they have been historically very against. Or how European rights are more financially supportive of the poorest parts of the society than the lefts.
Policies and trends are changing.
Yet we're stuck in this nonsense bipolarism when every other adult has many thoughts on many topics that don't really overlap with either of the two poles.
Some of rich eating may happen, but blood of landlord refresh tree f socialism etc etc... sometimes you just slap the reset button when accumulation out of control