this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
218 points (95.4% liked)

politics

31081 readers
2097 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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
[–] neuroneiro@lemmy.world 84 points 2 months ago (37 children)

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

[–] aarch0x40@piefed.social 72 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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

Republican Base: OVER OUR DEAD BODIES!!

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

*"OVER YOUR DEAD BODIES!"

ftfy

[–] SpikesOtherDog@ani.social 22 points 2 months ago

WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM screams my family as I tell them that they will pay the same or less in taxes than they were for insurance in the first place.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 43 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

But there are the De…

~Oooh. I see what you did there.~

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago (1 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.

[–] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (4 children)

instead of the inflammatory weasel-wording 'what if socialism takes over' like it's some kind of coup.

If I can give some context, as a DSA member, while DSA is parasitizing the Democratic ballot line, it essentially acts like an independent party.

The goal isn't necessarily to "take over" the Democratic Party. Rather, the dominant position in DSA is what's called a "Dirty Break", where the org parasitizes the Dems in the short term, essentially until they kick us out. Something which is already starting to happen, with Democrats telling us to go "make our own party" as though we haven't looked at the US political system, and ruled that out for now.

Further, DSA is a big tent organization, with everyone from reformist social democrats, to Anarchists, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. And the DSA party platform (the updated version of which gets released on the 14th, I believe) expresses an overt desire by DSA to transcend capitalism. So this isn't just a return to FDR style social Democracy, like you're suggesting, there's a bit more going on

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Thanks for the clarification, I feel like very little of this was discussed in the article and you explain it better.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 15 points 2 months ago
[–] treesquid@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LoafedBurrito@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 months 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 9 points 2 months ago (2 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.

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 4 points 2 months ago

Social democracy isn't socialism. Which is why it has the same problems as capitalism.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Author of the article never got to any sort of point. Just some random rambling. Jacobin needs to do better than this garbage.

[–] darkearth@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Instead of a "what if" we need a "how" and "when"

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months 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.

[–] TwinTitans@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 months 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).

[–] LordMayor@piefed.social 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The right wing has been pushing the Democratic Party to the right by getting making the Republicans more conservative/fascist. This pulls the Overton window to the right and the Democrats with it.

Socialism in the Democratic Party is the natural reaction to this pull. While welcome, the real solution is to do away with the two party system. Otherwise, it’s just a see-saw forever swinging back and forth.

[–] baronvonj@piefed.social 6 points 2 months ago (17 children)

the real solution is to do away with the two party system

How do envision getting from here to there?

[–] LordMayor@piefed.social 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think it has to happen locally. Ranked choice voting (or similar) needs to be pushed through. Then, school boards, city/county councils and state elections.

People need to recognize and relate to new parties. National elections are not the way to do it (fuck you Stein and the American Green Party).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (3 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.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Smart and wise folk generally do their best to stay out of formal politics. politics sucks.

[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Closest I can think of is Bernie Sanders, but he may have aged out of a presidential run.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

We can hope.

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] abc@suppo.fi 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Russia took over the GOP, not Democrats.

[–] Snowies@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 months ago

Democrats are very obviously in bed with Israel.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Microtonal_Banana@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 months ago

Not so scary if you do five minutes of research.

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production. Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet. You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism.

https://youtube.com/shorts/zMmjKRettxA

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same.

Social democracy, yes, is what you describe: try to regulate capitalism and make it livable via labor protections, public services and a welfare state. The end horizon is something like the Scandinavian dream.

Democratic socialism is different: the end horizon is indeed full blown socialism, with social ownership of the means of production and ultimately with abolition of capitalist relations altogether. However, for democratic socialists, the path to that horizon does not pass via revolution but via the democratic process.

In practice social-democrats and democratic-socialists end up finding it easy to agree on a political program for the here and now and so very often they coexist. Both want to reform capitalism.They just don't agree as to how deep that reform can go. For the democratic socialists, the things social-democrats want are in fact the means towards the end result. For the social-democrats that end result is not necessary considered possible or even desirable. But the two have never won that much that their differences would actually come to a head.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 2 months ago

Fucking authwall

[–] zebidiah@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well obviously more dems would become republicans than would become socialists...

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If someone reveals themselves to be garbage, they were always garbage

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 4 points 2 months ago
[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Oh. If you actually read the article, it's about nomenclature. Nothing of substance. What a waste.

[–] GutterRat42@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Maybe, just maybe, that will bring Republicans back to the center

load more comments
view more: next ›